Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[410indashade]

I don't expect much agreement on this but someone has to say it and say it here.  It's way past time for Rummy to pack his bags and didi mao!  If he really cared about this administration he would have been gone already.  I fear, the unbridled ego of the man to proud to admit when he's wrong.  Most of us have seen it in action!  There's nothing more dangerous to those that have the duty to follow such a man or woman.  Madeline Albright comes  immediately to mind.  And god help us all if Hilary becomes C-I-C.  But our problem of the moment is the current SECDEF or am I wrong?

[Bryan Lee]

When the Army Times says it, Its a year or two late! Rumsfield is not good for the Army and never was. He is exactly the kind of screwball that gets people killed by saving money on boots, not sending the right gear, and expecting to much from to little. He believes in corperate mythology not the real world of AK Warfare. I have said from the start we needed 300,000 to go in and 500,000 to replace them, mostly Admin types and police. Killing machines make bad cops without a cool down and retraining. It is just  bad science  to believe one day a guy is fighting for his life and the next day he puts on a badge and now he is there to protect and serve.

I could add about thirty pages of curse words here but I believe most know how I stand on the matter.

 

November 04, 2006

Editorial
Time for Rumsfeld to go

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld —

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

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.

[Kentbob]

Well, I don't know if it was symbolic or what, but Donny has turned in his resignation twice, only to have it denied by W.  I'm thinking it was more of a symbolic or political move, rather than a serious attempt at getting out of the Secdef position.  However, I've been wrong before, so I might be wrong again.

Kent

[JimH]

The military news papers arre all owned and run by one company the Gannet newspaper which is run by a Dem. and always pushes a Democratic agenda,so any editorials it puts out are not soley the voices of the troops.

Iraq
Well lets see,the Clinton admin was planning on  a war/invasion of Iraq.

They ran a war games scenario in which the over throw of Saddam and the turning of the Country was the goal (sounds familiar to me,same as Bush?,lol)
The plan called for 400,000 troops on the ground and still the Military commanders  ,feeding input and outcomes, said it would prpbably not be doable even if that number of troops were available as the  Clerics,the fundamentalists,the fanatics were too many to figure in to the scenario and they said CIVIL WAR was still a possible outcome.

They did not have the troop levels to carry it out,so they had a decision to put in 150 special Forces to try to stir it up and get the "SO CALLED" Iraqi/US Loyalists on board,that plan never went forward.

Clinton did not not want the incoming President ,who ever it was ,to have a war on their hands so Afghanistan and Iraq were put on the burner.

Enter Bush and Rumsfield:
Bush is told of al qaeda,afghanistan and Iraq and he explores the options as left to him by Clinton aides and Senior Military commanders who are the same commanders as under Clinton,so they know the drill as previously worked out.
(Many believed that the Iraqis in the South would be loyal to the US,want Saddam gone and would back the US/Coalition.this did not happen)

9/11 happens and with in 24 hours US troops,CIA andFBI specialists are on the ground in Afghanistan.

The war on the Tailiban/al qaeda was given to special Forces with a time line of see what they could do in 9 months,then reevaluate,it was declared a victory with the use of only two A teams with in 2-3 months.

Saddam was using his power plays with his friends at the UN,never expecting Bush to go it alone,neither did the French,Germans or Russians.

With the belief world wide that Saddam had WMD it was a show of who would back down,Saddam thought Bush would have to as help was not forth coming,but Bush went forward and with the belief we had Southern Iraq and the kurds to supplement us,and also a believe that once the removal of Saddam took place Iraqis would come on board.

Rumsfield has worked with what he had in troop numbers,we could not and cannot field a 200-400,000 troop ground force,with reliefs and the outcome as seen from the Clinton War planners was that a force of up to 400,000 may not work anyway.
(imagine if we had 200-400,000 troops in Iraq alone with no time frame for relief,no rotation in site,what would the troops be saying about that?)

If we remove Rumsfeld what do we do?

What does his  replacement do to make a winning difference?
Or
Does his replacement just start reducing troops in country?

If the politicians and commanders say we need more troops in country then lets have the draft and bring the numbers of troops available up (how many are in favor of that?)

if we reduce the troop strength how many more will die ?

If we pull out all together  then the Fanatics win and it is global terrorism,of the Greatest proportion.

The Fanatics are not going to negotiate a sieze fire.

Fox News Channel ran a show  called "Radical Islam",you want to see the threat and what they ,the fanatics want,watch that show.

Osama and Saddam have said that the US populace will not allow US Troop deaths and they have proven it over and over since the 70s,we CANNOT pull out of iraq and Afghanistan.

Many say we should have kept the Iraqi army and police intact and left them in charge,if that is so then we should have taken Saddam from power and just put him in charge of  the Miliatry and police.

Saddam saw the threat of Islamic fundamentalists,this is why he struck into Iran,why he  claimed WMD, why he controlled the fundamentalist view in Iraq.
(Saddam saw what we see now and without a Saddam in the Region the Region is doomed to be overrun by the Islamic Fanatics,if some one does not take a stand)

Imagine a Fundmentalist Iran,Iraq and Afghanistan?
You think we have problems now,lol.

Lets see some ideas for a change that improves our outcome from any politicians or military leaders?
They all condem because it is popular and safe as they risk nothing,tell us of some plans that ANYONE sees that will work for the long term,not just get troops home and go isolationist as if nothing will happen.
(they,the islamic fanatics, mean us DEAD period,every non believer,everywhere,so we must try to change the children and maybe change the future)

Just My two cents

[410indashade]

Assuming for the sake of argument everything JimH has written were historically true, it's not but let us now proceed on the basic assumption that it is historically correct.  Now, forgetting for the moment that Rummy literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afganistan.  Does anyone see the fatal flaw in Rummy's strategy for Irag?  Helpful Hint: It has to do Muslim culture and someone has written about it here before.  Oh, and I think Heigel said it first, "Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."     

[JimH]

qoute 410:
"Assuming for the sake of argument everything JimH has written were historically true, it's not"

Which part of what I said was not correct??
                ........................................................

The problem in Iraq is not the Muslim populace it is the fantaical populace,the extremists.

When you have fanatics killing all who disagree with their ideals you have an unstable society.
(When the suicide bombings/bombings come to the US and we find people killing themselves and taking 10s-100s with them what will we do to stop it? How will it impact our society when people fear going out,shopping,traveling?)

When you have clerics who see the power available and a government leader depending upon these powerful clrics then you have a problem.

If it is believed their is a solution what is it?

The Fanatics will not concede,nor will they stop as long as Religious leaders tell them it is the will and Goal of Allah.

I do not agree with the way the war was entered into as it should have been to destroy the enemy and bring them to their knees,but they say the war was not with the people just the leadership so they operated with saving as much as possible, i would have bombed them to break them and then sent in ground troops as was done in 93.

The over throw of Saddam has been on the table since 1983,it was hoped that they would go forward and do it in 93 when they could have done it but Bush senior listened to Powell over Stormin Norman and said we acheived our objective we will leave.

We had backing in the south then and we had the Kurds in the north,two groups we relied on in this outing that never materialized.

I would love to see what an alternative is ?
Aside from cranking up the attacks on those who attack us and giving the military a lot more leeway rather than a police action/state,bring it to a true military action/state until control is acheived,but the New Iraqi Government will not allow that now,so we are stuck in what we are doing.

[JimH]

Here is some of the clinton Policy on iraq in 1999,the same time that they ran the War game scenario and came to their conclusions which I have listed above:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/02/wwwh9f02.htm

I notice Albrights name was brought up in the first post on this thread,the same albright in the articles above,lol.

The same Albright who did not want to invadembut wanted Saddam overthrown by the arab states and from within with CIA and Special Forces Help.

If we read down the page we also see that  the US is telling UNSCOM that sanctionas are not working and we need to replace Butler to persue the overthrow,
(sounds like what was done to me under bush?)

Sorry we are beyond the Arab states help and well beyond the overthrow from within,we missed our window in 93 for Iraq as we missed our window in Afghanistan in 89,had we not left afghanistan the way we did in 89 after we told them for 10 years we would support them ,we would not have these problems today in the region as we would have Afghanistan and Pakistan on board as compliant partners ,not forced partners.

If we leave Iraq ,as we left Afghanistan in 89,we will have a problem similar to that we had in Afghanistan in the early 90's and  it will be filled by the Fanatics that feel betrayed  and trhey will look to Thank us for Betrayal,like Osama did.

Again We are where we would be in iraq,doing what we are doing no matter the Political forces sitting in the white house and this election and the 2008 election will change nothing .

[Hock]

Every football team that doesn't win every game and the Superbowl, falls under the scrutiny of the "change the coach" issues. As Rumsfield quallifies under this ever-so-common common cause alone, then from all the problems today.

Rumsfield wanted to turn the Pentagon upside down and shake the perfumed princes up and out. I wholly advocate. And, he made many enemies from day one.

The Army Times is owned by Gannet, just another newspaper company that makes many theme newspapers and has little to no official connection to the pentagon or official, only tacit support from the Army.

Our political correct inability to kick ass and take names has caused these problems in Iraq, which is a shared rsponsibility of all politicians and not completely on Rummy's shoulders. The next batch of knuckleheads will have the same horrible problems.

Hock

[Shane]

Fox News Channel ran a show  called "Radical Islam",you want to see the threat and what they ,the fanatics want,watch that show.

Jim, I saw this show saturday night. I am very glad they ran it. Its about damn time they show the true threat to our society in detail. Far too many people chose not to address just how deep radical islam runs and how psychotic these freaks really are.

[Bryan Lee]

Fox News Channel ran a show  called "Radical Islam",you want to see the threat and what they ,the fanatics want,watch that show.

Jim, I saw this show saturday night. I am very glad they ran it. Its about damn time they show the true threat to our society in detail. Far too many people chose not to address just how deep radical islam runs and how psychotic these freaks really are.

   A much better documentary is Robert Baer "Cult of the Suicide Bomber" Even he has it wrong claiming that a Iranian boy in the 80s was the first to commit suicide in the name of Islam, He completely overlooked the "Juramentado" which is the real basis of suicide bombing. The best part of the whole film is watching him being welcomed right into the homes and Masjids with him asking hard questions and getting real awnsers, I might add he was treated pretty nicely throughout the filming, even at Tehran University during friday prayer.

[spanky]

so Bryan do you support or condemn these homicide bomber fanatics ?

[Bryan Lee]

so Bryan do you support or condemn these homicide bomber fanatics ?

   Are you some kind of Moron? That has to be the stupidest question I have been asked to date on all forums. I have to say most of the people on this forum are pretty good even when they strongly disagree. You and one or two others border on the pathetic though, Have you tried the PAX forum, Im sure you would fit right in, hell you might pass as a guru there.

[Kentbob]

so Bryan do you support or condemn these homicide bomber fanatics ?

   Are you some kind of Moron? That has to be the stupidest question I have been asked to date on all forums. I have to say most of the people on this forum are pretty good even when they strongly disagree. You and one or two others border on the pathetic though, Have you tried the PAX forum, Im sure you would fit right in, hell you might pass as a guru there.

Mr. Lee, your comments are way out of line.  And a clever dodge of the question. 

Kent

[Bryan Lee]

so Bryan do you support or condemn these homicide bomber fanatics ?

   Are you some kind of Moron? That has to be the stupidest question I have been asked to date on all forums. I have to say most of the people on this forum are pretty good even when they strongly disagree. You and one or two others border on the pathetic though, Have you tried the PAX forum, Im sure you would fit right in, hell you might pass as a guru there.

Mr. Lee, your comments are way out of line.  And a clever dodge of the question. 

Kent

   Do you think that question was not out of line? Do I seem suicidel or something? Me and you disagree on many things but you manage to be civil about it, I try to be respectable to. I could just as easily go hang out on websites where everyone agrees with me, the easy way out. The only reason I put up with some of the bullshit is when the current crises is past and China starts screwing around with Taiwan or North Korea fires a nuke off into South Korea the same people who today are slagging off Muslims will be damm happy to see some with American Uniforms on ready to fight. For that matter the Army today will sign as many Arabic speakers as it can get, to bad some of the twats on the internet know nothing of the Army and how it functions nor see the need for diverse religions withen the Army so the agents of propaganda cannot refer to the U.S, Military as a Crusader Force. These same twats with their Infidel T-shirt uniforms and Youtube gunslinging  play right into the hands of the extremist and the propagandist and get Americans killed in Iraq as they sit around high fiving each other withen the safty of America.

 

   

[spanky]

Bryan calm down and put some aluminum foil inside your hat that will keep the satellites from sending the signals to your brain and you will be safe and sound. 





Oh and good dodge, I don't believe you have answered any questions anyone here has asked you.