ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:07 am

I thought about starting this thread last night when I saw a clip on CNN of several retired US Generals (2 Army, 1 Marine) blasting Dumsfeld and his antics in the Pentagon.

Glad I didn't - more info available today.

I watched a 4th US Army retired 4 Star on "The Situation Room" on CNN discuss Rumsfeld's current position as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/newbold.iraq.tm/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/11/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

I can't find a clip of Gen Joulwan's commentary on The Situation Room, but I'm sure it'll be available soon.

I can say - now - I told you so. Even before I left DC in 2001, the Pentagon was in turmoil over the SecDefs autocratic, dictatorial management. Gen Shinseki was all but run off from the Pentagon because he dared to share a different opinion about the direction of the Army. Dumsfeld so heavily brow beat senior leadership in the Pentagon that no one - not one single Active Duty 4 Star - would take the job when Shinseki left. Had to bring a man out of retirement.

I've said it before - I'm saying it again: Rumsfeld must go.

I can only hope this is the beginning of the end of this Secretary of Defense.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:11 am

Looking at the title of the thread, I thought maybe he was out hunting with the VP.  Big grin
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
I've said it before - I'm saying it again: Rumsfeld must go.

 checkmark 
That man is the second worst thing to happen to the US military in the two administrations.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:13 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2):
That man is the second worst thing to happen to the US military in the two administrations.

Jeez. who topped him, in your estimation?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:17 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Jeez. who topped him, in your estimation?

The man who gave RIF a whole new meaning, President Clinton.

... Just noticed that I left out the word "last" from my previous post by accident... it should read, "in the last two administrations"
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:21 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 4):
The man who gave RIF a whole new meaning, President Clinton.

Oh, I should have guessed.  sarcastic 
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:35 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Oh, I should have guessed.

Are you going to try and deny that Mr. Clinton slaughtered the US military?

That aside, I've very rarely commented here on my opinion of other facets of his administration so I find it hard to believe that you could guess much about my thoughts in that regard.

Alas we sidetrack... but since we three all seem to be in agreement that Rumsfeld needs a footwear induced trip to the curb, we will have to wait for a Rumsfeld supporter to chime in before getting back on track.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:36 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 4):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Jeez. who topped him, in your estimation?

The man who gave RIF a whole new meaning, President Clinton.

Well, Falcon my friend - there is a point here.

Let me expound on his estimation:

The worst SecDef in my adult lifetime: Donald Rumsfeld.

The largest RIF of the Military in my adult lifetime, the sitting PotUS: Bill Clinton.

Bush 1 started it, I know - Clinton accelerated it. Now, my friend, we pay the heavy, heavy price.

Regardless - Rummy has to go. Period.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:37 am

Here is another article where JSC Gen. Pace defends Rummy. Just for argumental reasons.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/11/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
That being posted, I agree %100 with Newbold, this has been a failure at the highest levels of government and that the troops have done a great job for the most part, despite being put into a most difficult situation, for Bush, Rummy and Condi to minimize thier roles in the mishaps is tragic IMHO.
My question is, if he goes...who takes over? I know the Powell wasnt really interested in the job of SecDef, but how much would he have done differently? Especially with combat experience which Rumsfeld never had IIRC, I know he was a navy pilot, but in between Korea and Vietnam.
What I see in this administration is an eagerness to put troops in harms way, when they werent willing to do the same themselves. I dont think combat experience should be needed for a PoTUS, but between SecDef, VP and PoTUS, one of them should have seen thier buddies get hurt before they send folks in, especially under false pretenses.
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:46 am

Poor Henry Kissinger II. How do you guys think this'll end up?
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:47 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 6):

Are you going to try and deny that Mr. Clinton slaughtered the US military?

Talk about being overly dramatic, that's it.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:48 am

I posted that bit from Gen Pace above. Pace is doing exactly what he needs to do to keep his job . . . .

Interesting note here: All these retired Generals that are now speaking out are doing so only now because of the law. They are still bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice for a time after separation from the military. Furthermore, they have friends and associates in the Pentagon that they have to protect as well . . .

If Rummy were to get replaced it'd be a hard call as to his successor. No one I can think of at the moment makes me happy. Colin Powell of course, but he burned his bridges. Besides, why would be want to be SecDef having been SecState already?

No one else comes to mind. And ANYONE could be a failure, especially if selected by PotUS . . . he has proven less than stellar in his staff selections in some cases . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:51 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
I've said it before - I'm saying it again: Rumsfeld must go.

Agreed 100%. Saw Ann Coulter once on Fox stating that Rumsfield was the greatest SOD in the history of the USA. I almost threw up my dinner.

In my humble opinion, he has seriously harmed the military with his management style, (its my way or the highway). Iraq is a perfect example of a mess. I recalled staff asking for more soliders, and he refused the request, and the rest is history.
 
boeingfanyyz
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:12 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:52 am

When has Rumsfield, or any other member of the Bush administration, not been under fire!? Espccially Cheney, quite literally (think about it!!!)

Cheers,
Boeingfanyyz  airplane 
"If it aint boeing, it aint going!", "Friends are like condoms...they protect you when things get hard!"
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:53 am

Ive got just the man for the job! I am sure most of my right winged counter parts will love this one.


Think about it, knows his way around DC, combat vetran, and actually has an exit plan. Much better than I can say for the top three dudes going for us now.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:54 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10):
Talk about being overly dramatic, that's it.

Sorry, but I know a lot of good people who very suddenly found themselves at the end of their careers.

The RIFs could have been handled in a much better manner, namely allowing natural contraction of numbers by lowering recruitment levels... instead of axeing whole units in place.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:57 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 14):
Ive got just the man for the job! I am sure most of my right winged counter parts will love this one.

I thought Dave Thomas was dead?

"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
 
jamesag96
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 2:59 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:59 am

Couldn't agree more, Rummy should have been gone long long ago.

Bush inherited a depleted military, and Rumsfeld has done his best to force a square peg in a round hole despite the "guys in the field" whom Bush oft refers request for more.
Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:59 am

Good thread ANC. Many high level officials have been saying this for quite sometime. You know as well my distaste for Rumsfeld from previous threads I've posted.

On a sidenote, it was the army that Clinton created that won the war Afghanistan and the initial round of combat in Iraq.
NO URLS in signature
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:00 am

Quoting LHMARK (Reply 16):
I thought Dave Thomas was dead?

He is, his genetic mutated clone though is Rep. John Murtha D Penn.
 
jamesag96
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 2:59 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:14 am

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 18):
On a sidenote, it was the army that Clinton created that won the war Afghanistan and the initial round of combat in Iraq.

One could argue that those occured in spite of what was "created" rather than because of.
Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:58 am

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 18):
Good thread ANC. Many high level officials have been saying this for quite sometime. You know as well my distaste for Rumsfeld from previous threads I've posted.

On this issue TBar we unequivocally agree . . . always have.

Top Brass in the Five Sided Funny Farm have bailed out on careers because of Rummy. In this single aspect - the Vietnam era is replaying itself right on the shores ofthe Potomac. Civilian Leadership (read that : Rumsfeld) is not, will not, cannot listen to Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines trained in the Operational Art of War and it's continuing to cost us gravely.

Quoting JamesAg96 (Reply 20):
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 18):
On a sidenote, it was the army that Clinton created that won the war Afghanistan and the initial round of combat in Iraq.

One could argue that those occured in spite of what was "created" rather than because of.

I would agree with your assessment James . . . the US Military, in it's current form - that is post Clinton era drawdowns - is great out of the gate, but has no staying power. It's too damned small, stretched too thin, and inadequately equipped. And the fault begins with Bush 1, accelerates with with Clinton and continues with Bush 2.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:07 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 6):
we will have to wait for a Rumsfeld supporter to chime in before getting back on track.

Are there any such creatures, even among the hardcore Bush supporters?

No matter what you think of Bush, Rumsfield's arrogance has been an issue from day one. While reports similar to those posted above, from civilians and lower level military brass, have been appearing almost since the beginning, at last there are some truly top level brass in positions to expose the situation. I only hope that Bush's demonstrated blind loyalty doesn't lead him to categorically dismiss it all.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:33 pm

More  redflag  from Rummy . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...2006-04-11-rumsfeld-rebuttal_x.htm

"He never raised an issue publicly or privately when he was here that I know of," said Rumsfeld. "An awful lot of people around here were not shy about giving their views. ... But in terms of why he would come up with this now, I just can't speak to that."

I can speak to it . . . the answer is simple: Lt Gen Newbold didn't want to have his ass handed to him and be forced to retire like SHinseki and a dozen others . . . that's the answer to that.

I watched Gen Joulwan yesterday on CNN (The Situation Room) where he made this comment (paraphrasing), "We need more Generals to stand up and take issue with this Secretary of Defense. Plenty of junior soldiers already do, but if you're a general, you ought to act like it". Very well said IMO.

Having been stationed at the Five Sided Funny Farm I can assure you it's nothing more than a politicians haven . . . very few REAL soldiers there.

Occasionally, you'll see Brigadier General David Grange on CNN. He retired as a one star, although - he once wore two stars! Now there is a top notch general. Why one star now??? Well, it's like this. He was the Division Commander (I believe it was the 82nd) as a 2 star, but was a junior 2 star. Once his command time had expired, he was told he would be transferred to the Pentagon. He refused the assignment stating, as I have, that it's not the real Army in the Pentagon. He wanted to stay with the troops. He was summarily retired. Since he hadn't held the 2 star rank for the prescribed minimum time, he was reduced in rank to a single star upon retirement.

Quite a shame that our DoD (my Army) allows that crap. Rummy could have stopped that too, but he didn't.


Gen Peter Pace, C-JCS, said, ""We have sufficient personnel, weapons, equipment, you name it, to handle any adversary that might come along," he said.

IMO - utter nonsense. Standing next to Rummy today (yesterday actually), defending his boss. Honorable to defend your boss - but only if he's right. I've lost a great degree of respect for Pace.

Rumsfeld needs to go!
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
itsjustme
Posts: 2727
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:58 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:47 pm

OK, I'll say it...by allowing this obviously inept person to keep his position, isn't the Commander In Chief just as much to blame as Mr. Rumsfeld?
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:51 pm

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 24):
by allowing this obviously inept person to keep his position, isn't the Commander In Chief just as much to blame as Mr. Rumsfeld?

Yes.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
HatTrick
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:18 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:35 am

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 24):
OK, I'll say it...by allowing this obviously inept person to keep his position, isn't the Commander In Chief just as much to blame as Mr. Rumsfeld?

I can hear it now: "You're doing a heckuva job Rummie!"
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:54 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
The worst SecDef in my adult lifetime: Donald Rumsfeld.

How about Robert McNamara? Rumsfeld almost seems like a clone of this fellow

-Sam
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:20 am

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 27):
How about Robert McNamara?

I did say "in my adult lifetime". Macnamara, according to my Father, was the worst he's ever seen . . .

I believe you're right, Rummy is a clone, very nearly, of Macnamara.

And, another General, Major General Batiste, former Commander of the 1st Infantry Division, has called for Rumsfeld's ouster.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:48 am

Just for debate reasons...what are anyones thoughts on the job Cheney did as SecDef?
Speaking in terms of non-political, during his time in the Bush 41 administration he came to AK to fish in my nieghborhood the Togiak NWF. Him and staff flew into the area on UH-60s and complained rudely to a friend of mine who is a fish biologist on the Goodnews River about the lack of cell phone reception. WTF!? There still to this day is no cellular coverage in this part of the state 15 years later.
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:24 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 29):
what are anyones thoughts on the job Cheney did as SecDef?

He did fine - better than fine. He listened to what Powell and Schwartzkopf had to say, generally went with their decisions from a militarily tactical and strategic point of view and passed on decisions to them from PotUS. As it should be. Cheney was never in the military, and had no experience in the Operational Art. He did what he should have done.

Now - Rummy, of course, was an Air Force pilot. Supposedly trained in the Operational Art. Unfortunately, herein lies the problem with training versus reality - and experience versus book learning. All the training in the world won't serve you well if you don't know how to employ it. IMO, the only way to learn how to properly employ said training is in the field, commanding troops. Couple this lack of experience on the ground - so to speak - with his arrogance and the DoD has been screwed from day 1 he got the job.

Back to Cheney . . . what ever failing he has or may have as a VPotUS, it's my opinion he was a good SecDef . . . good because he knew where his bread was buttered - with the troops . . . from Gen Powell to the smallest Private. That is one, only ONE of Rumsfeld's many failings.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:45 am

Add another one...


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html


BTW, Rumsfield has tendered his resignation twice but...

Hmmm....


Are two Army divisions enough for a coup d'état?  Wink

[Edited 2006-04-14 00:54:56]
Ain't I a stinker?
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:24 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 31):
BTW, Rumsfield has tendered his resignation twice but...

But the idiot in charge didnt accept it and told him he was going ahelluva job!
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:35 am

More on Rummy:

A friend sent me this . . . another good read. More on Dumsfeld.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/?nav=tap3

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 31):
BTW, Rumsfield has tendered his resignation twice but...

Yes he has, over a year ago, in answer to Abu Ghraib. And PotUS declined.

I'm of the opinion it's never smart to switch leadership in the middle of a war - unless said leadership is costing the US and it's troops more than we are benefitting. I'd have liked to see McNamara go away early, he didn't. And I'd like to see Rumsfeld go away - about 3 years ago. He didn't/hasn't.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:01 am

Quote:
I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat---al-Qaeda. ... [T]he Pentagon's military leaders ... with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. ... It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again.
- Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold

That is all starting to sound a lot like the conflict between the military and the White House that surfaced during the last years of the Vietnam War.

That took a serious toll on the military and was still quite evident in 1980 when I joined. Some of those old-time Nam NCOs were pretty bitter about being used as pawns in a political struggle where they were asked to do things that were beyond their skills as soldiers.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:12 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 34):
Some of those old-time Nam NCOs were pretty bitter about being used as pawns in a political struggle where they were asked to do things that were beyond their skills as soldiers.

I think this is the crux of the problem. Man did the invasion go well for our military, because that is what they train and are equipped to do. We cannot expect them to rebuild and wins the hearts and minds when everyone involved iraqi citizen to US soldier worried about being blown up. I think it was a fundamental mistake not getting the UNs blessing in this. Which it wouldnt have given, but regardless, if we had the UN, we would have a bigger support net to get the country rebuilt and peaceful. I dont think we needed thier help for the invasion, we showed our folks can handle that well. But so far the invasion has only consisted of %2 of the war in terms of time spent on it.
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:26 pm

And another . . . MG Swannick, former 82nd Airborne Division Commander calls for Rumsfeld to depart the AO.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/13/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

Yup, understanding the Operation Art of War is a rather necessary requirement for leading a military . . . failing that, listening to your Commanders that ARE so trained is a rather important piece of the puzzle.

And I believe this to be correct as well . . . rather than find the people that issued the orders for Abu Ghraib - we jailed a bunch of junior solders (rightfully so of course) and dismissed, demoted or fragged a bunch of officers, but the true culprits escaped:

"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:52 pm

FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:46 pm

NY Times article on the subject today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/washington/14military.html

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:24 am

OK...I'll go in now with an opinion. With open rebellion amongst a group of normally quiet people (retired generals) who are loath to open up unless they are purely political animals (although Zinni is writing a book) Rumsfeld has proven that his time to lead the Department of Defence as second in command of the US military is over because he can't control his own troops.

I think that much of what he's done has been correct, but the number of troops necessary to successfully control and secure the occupation of Iraq was underestimated for political and economic reasons and he pushed the posit that we could do more with less. He's had the support of the President but he's shown less and less in the way of new ideas lately (although the Army has been transformed in several key ways that will benefit it). He's advocated ideas and strategies that will win short term conflicts and makes our forces more flexible, but not ones that have gotten us the long term results in a time frame needed politically for public support of the way this war is being fought.

It seems that he's forgotten that one can be an asshole but you have to win big to overcome that....see Patton.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
Gen Shinseki was all but run off from the Pentagon because he dared to share a different opinion about the direction of the Army

General Shinseki may have been a great guy but he pushed the Army into the interim armored vehicle which will never be more than a mediocre compromise that doesn't provide the level of protection or strategic mobility required to perform its stated function.
He's also the one who ran over everybody to push that idiotic beret thing he figured would make the average soldier more photogenic and instant commandos. He was a political choice for his post (just like Wesley Clark) and there were better choices available.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
Had to bring a man out of retirement

Yeah, but you gotta admit that Schoomaker is one hell of a soldier and was the right guy for the job.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
The worst SecDef in my adult lifetime: Donald Rumsfeld.

No.....you seem to be forgetting Les Aspin, Schlesinger (amnesty for draft dodgers?), and McNamara. Seriously.....McNamara was the king of micromanagement. Rumsfeld is simply pushing for more with less and trying to force the political solution while McNamara wanted to issue orders to privates on the line.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
The largest RIF of the Military in my adult lifetime, the sitting PotUS: Bill Clinton.

...more than the RIF was the calculated decision to strip the military of parts and equipment needed during the drawdown while uprating the tempo. Most of all was the inexcusable public decisionmaking that saw our troops being given missions but not the tools, and sent into combat while being hamstrung by rules similar to Vietnam.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:30 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
No.....you seem to be forgetting Les Aspin, Schlesinger (amnesty for draft dodgers?)

To suggest that the draft amnesty or Aspin's lethargy are even remotely in the same league as the Rumsfeld's deeply flawed Iraq policy and ineptness as a leader is a real stretch. I don't think many historians will share your view.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
Most of all was the inexcusable public decisionmaking that saw our troops being given missions but not the tools, and sent into combat while being hamstrung by rules similar to Vietnam.

The very same observation is being being made by these Generals and many others regarding Iraq. Once again there is also a considerable issue of scale. What Clinton did was small potatoes compared to the thoroughly incompetent and profoundly irresponsible actions of Bush and Rumsfeld in Iraq. Your GOP pom-poms are really showing through with that sort of partisan analysis.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
texan
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:45 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
Rumsfeld Under Fire

Are you suggesting that if we were somehow able to lower the fire a little bit he would be incinerated?!?  hyper 

Give me the tongs and fire poker!

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
maury
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:27 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:56 am

OK...40-odd replies (some quite odd, heh) and now it's time to ask: who's next? Let's say Rummy goes--are there any good candidates to replace him, or is that part of the rationale for not letting him go? (I'd have no clue who it'd be, either--just wondering.)

Or is the "don't change horses in mid-stream" thing enough to keep him onboard until '08?
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1679
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:52 am

Quoting Maury (Reply 42):
Or is the "don't change horses in mid-stream" thing enough to keep him onboard until '08?

I think he's gone this time. If he isn't this dissent will only get worse. I just don't see how Bush can keep him now.

As for a replacement, that's a hard one. I don't think any of the old school neo-cons are confirmable. It's going to be really hard for Bush to get the "best and the brightest" to come on board considering the state of affairs in Iraq and the very unpopular standing of the Administration. Hooking yourself up to Bush and this war right now isn't a very good career move. Although, if you could step into DoD and fix this mess in Iraq, you'd be a hero.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:34 am

Update:

Bush: Rumsfeld 'exactly what is needed'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/14/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html


"He's also the one who ran over everybody to push that idiotic beret thing"

Black is too trendy and chicks wear them all the time. Besides, tan is prettier than black anyway... sua sponte  Wink
Ain't I a stinker?
 
ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:29 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
(although the Army has been transformed in several key ways that will benefit it).

Agreed, the Brigade Combat Teams are the way to go . . . although the idea isn't Rumsfeld's, he simply perpetuated it and directed it become reality.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
It seems that he's forgotten that one can be an asshole but you have to win big to overcome that....see Patton.

 checkmark 

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
General Shinseki may have been a great guy but he pushed the Army into the interim armored vehicle which will never be more than a mediocre compromise that doesn't provide the level of protection or strategic mobility required to perform its stated function.

Because he was given a deadline - an unrealistic deadline - by the JCS and SecDef Staff. We are now saddled with a vehicle that doesn't perform as built off the factory floor, rather like the Bradley. Looks good, but has to be stripped to fit in an aircraft, has to have add-on armor to protect it from .50 cal, etc. etc.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
He's also the one who ran over everybody to push that idiotic beret thing he figured would make the average soldier more photogenic and instant commandos.

Agreed. The whole beret issue was ridiculous.

I'm not supporting Shinseki in most of his endeavors - what I'm trying to point out bringing him up is that when he summarily disagreed with SecDef on avenues of approach for transforming the Army (and I'm only speaking of the Army here) he was fired and sent packing. Those voices in this thread that suggest Active Duty Soldiers should and could make a stink need to pay heed to this. Shinseki was the Chief of Staff of the Army. If he is summarily fired as a 4 Star General and the tallest Hog at the Trough in the Army, imagine what raising concerns will do to a 3 Star, 1 Star, Colonel, Sergeant Major, Sergeant, Private? There wouldn't be enough of their careers left to sweep up. See my point?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
Yeah, but you gotta admit that Schoomaker is one hell of a soldier and was the right guy for the job.

No dispute. Schoomaker is a ass kicking, awesome General/Soldier. No question. The fact remains however, that no one on the Active Duty roles wanted to work for Rumsfeld, and in fact several of the generals on the short list resigned and retired rather than stay on said list. This ought to speak volumes!

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
and McNamara

Please note I said in "my adult lifetime". I'm  old  but I'm not a relic quite yet  wink .

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
No.....you seem to be forgetting Les Aspin, Schlesinger (amnesty for draft dodgers?)

Didn't forget them. The military continued to perform despite Aspin and Schlesinger, and do a stellar job. Those two weren't around long enough to matter. Fortunately, someone wised up quickly and they were gone before too much damage was done.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
McNamara was the king of micromanagement.

Rumsfeld must have been his best student, as he is the King of Micromanagement ReDeux.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
Rumsfeld is simply pushing for more with less and trying to force the political solution while McNamara wanted to issue orders to privates on the line.

And Rumsfeld is giving him a run for his money. When Rumsfeld personally selects the names of three star generals to go to the President for promotion, regardless of what raters and senior raters on an OER have to say, something is amiss.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
The largest RIF of the Military in my adult lifetime, the sitting PotUS: Bill Clinton.

...more than the RIF was the calculated decision to strip the military of parts and equipment needed during the drawdown while uprating the tempo. Most of all was the inexcusable public decisionmaking that saw our troops being given missions but not the tools, and sent into combat while being hamstrung by rules similar to Vietnam.

 checkmark 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:42 am

Quoting Maury (Reply 42):
Let's say Rummy goes--are there any good candidates to replace him,

I have the perfect one...TOM CLANCY! Think about it, already a military insider, who has shown he can listen to soldiers and brass alike, at the end of his tenure we will get some incredible literature from it, and his ability to spin a good story out of little or nothing means he would fit in well in the Bush Administration.
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:12 am

Current score: 6 - 2

Against:
Maj. Gen. John Batiste (USA)
Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold (USMC)
Maj. Gen. John Riggs (USA)
Gen. Anthony Zinni (USMC)
Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack (USA)
Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (USA)

For:
Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC)
Gen. Tommy Franks (USA)

Sor far the Air Force and Navy are staying in the sideline.

[Edited 2006-04-15 02:16:48]
Ain't I a stinker?
 
TPASXM787
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:31 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 36):
"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

This is absolutely true. The problem with (most) sec def is they don't call it like it is. It's a political position, and that's how they act.

Wars aren't fought by politicians, they are fought by men. Politicians just make the decision to send them.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
of all was the inexcusable public decisionmaking that saw our troops being given missions but not the tools, and sent into combat while being hamstrung by rules similar to Vietnam.

I see much of this now as well. They send the men over there, but don't let them do what they need to do, becuase the men on the ground don't have the final decision on what goes on...this comes from Dumsfeld. You can't tell me that if our military was allowed to do their job, we wouldn't have a much better handle on Iraq.

we should start a website....firedumsfeld.com

Hell it worked for Ron Zook...
This is the Last Stop.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Rumsfeld Under Fire

Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:31 am

Was McNamara's micromanagement really just about Vietnam?
If so, couldn't LBJ have been the one insisting on it?
Because he would always be very aware that the enemy were being suppiled by two nuclear armed powers, the USSR being being a military one only perhaps, but with nuclear parity with the US by the late 60's.
The fear of escalation there must have weighed heavily, remember they saw the Cuban Missile Crisis up close.
Plus LBJ was trying to have a twin track military and political agenda.

However, McNamara was the main proponent of the blockcade option in the missile crisis, helping JFK against the great pressure of the JCS to go and bomb/invade Cuba.
We now know at the first sight of the fleet on the horizon, the Soviet troops in Cuba had orders to lob nuclear armed, truck mounted, FROG missiles in the general direction of the US forces.
These weapons were not known about at the time, so likely not be hit by airstrikes.

If JFK had bowed to JCS pressure, none of us would be having this discussion.
McNamara learnt a stark lesson about the limitations of nuclear threats.

But for deterrence, he rationalised the bloated, often absurd range of nuclear delivery systems he inherited.
B-70-once in service vunerable to 2nd generation IA-PVO SAM's, like SA-5, hugely expensive, none of the B-52's versatility.
He was correct in axing it.

Snark, a long range cruise missile, could not be called back like a bomber, but with the bomber's vunerability, terrible record in test firings, so much so, off the FLA coast was called 'Snark infested waters'.
Not deployed.

Quickened the phase out of vunerable liquid fuelled IRBM's and ICBM's, not quick enough for the IRBM's in Turkey, partly causing the Cuba crisis.
Of near obselete bombers like B-47, limited production of the limited, difficult, B-58 bomber.

But, he speeded up the deployment of much less vunerable systems like Minuteman ICBM's, Polaris SLBM's.

For NATO, he formulated 'Flexible Response', as an alternative to the 'Tripwire' idea, though he says he never really got the conventional forces he really wanted in Europe (Vietnam did not help here, some European NATO members did not increase conventional forces as much as McNamara would have liked).
But still, the change raised the nuclear threshold significantly.
He called the the then existing NATO 'Tripwire' idea, all out nuclear combat for even the most limited Soviet action, 'a spastic response'.

While he dropped a bollock with the TFS, (or did LBJ just push for the GD, Texas based bid, based on what became the F-111-which was fine for the USAF role, just not the USN).
In any case, the concept was right, as seen by the USAF adopting the F-4, something else McNamara instigated after a fly off with the then current USAF 'Century Series' fleet, so you can see where the idea came from.

I know defending McNamara will get me flamed here, I just think he was largely right in what he was seeking to do, just that the elephant in the room was a very big one-Vietnam. But would any SecDef under LBJ done any different?
At least MacNamara came to see it was going wrong there, and has expressed severe regrets since, as well as admitting to his part in this.

Somehow, I don't see Rumsfeld in retirement doing the same with Iraq.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: qfflyer, SoJo and 9 guests