Generals Vs. Rumsfeld

[jillian]

Regarding Hamas, my point is that you cannot preach democracy to the Arab people and tell them America will support them, then turn around and NOT support them after they hold a democratic election. That's hypocritical in the worst way. Typical of the incompetence of the foreign policy here, the shortsightedness. Instead of co-opting Hamas, or even restraining them, we push away from them and give ourselves no control or even say in the situation of them or the Palestinian people. Way to go USA!

The U.S. would have supported Hamas and the nacient democracy in the region. The problem is that Hamas wouldn't agree to drop it's terrorist agenda, despite being given every opportunity to do so. So any support we would give would be used to advance the agenda of Hamas...which is to drive Israel into the sea. Created a quandry..... How do you support a government financially which will then turn around and use those funds in furtherance of terrorism?

As for Rumsfeld, problem is he's lost the support of his troops, if he ever had it.... That isn't a good situation. Moreover, perhaps someone new taking the job (maybe Joe Lieberman?) would result in better decision-making.

 

[5stringJeff]

In regards to Rumsfeld resigning or being fired, despite the fact he should have been fired two years over Abu Gharib, I've actually come to the conclusion that firing or making him resign now would be bad because it is doubtful anyone worth a shit would replace him. We don't need a caretaker DOD head. We need a leader, Rumsfeld is neither a caretaker or a leader anymore, more like a sad, pathetic broken old man whose dream of transformation has died at the hands of his enemies and whose misadventure in Iraq will forever eclipse his brilliance and wit in the Afghanistan invasion.

NATO, usually you're a pretty level-headed thinker, but this paragraph has got me scratching my head.

First, after having read everything I've read about Abu Gharib, I think the responsibility rests on the MPs on the ground, up to the 1-star commander of the prison. How Rumsfield is responsible enough to be forced to resign is beyond me. (And yes, I know the chain-of-command argument; I don't think Rummy is culpable in that sense either.)

Second, how do you come to the conclusion that DoD transformation has died? I'm not sure about the Navy, but the Army is still transforming and fighting simultaneously and meeting all its missions. I wouldn't say that it's been without growing pains, but it's far from a failure and certainly not dead.

 

[NATO AIR]

NATO, usually you're a pretty level-headed thinker, but this paragraph has got me scratching my head.

First, after having read everything I've read about Abu Gharib, I think the responsibility rests on the MPs on the ground, up to the 1-star commander of the prison. How Rumsfield is responsible enough to be forced to resign is beyond me. (And yes, I know the chain-of-command argument; I don't think Rummy is culpable in that sense either.)

Second, how do you come to the conclusion that DoD transformation has died? I'm not sure about the Navy, but the Army is still transforming and fighting simultaneously and meeting all its missions. I wouldn't say that it's been without growing pains, but it's far from a failure and certainly not dead.

Not only was abuse committed at Abu Gharib, but also at other installations around the world. I apologize for not writing this as well. My point is that Rumsfeld's confusing, unclear rules on what was and wasn't torture and proper procedure led to abuses like Abu Gharib and others. Remember Alberto Mora, the quiet conservative Navy Attorney General, who came out earlier this year and told of his distress and that of other Pentagon lawyers, JAGs and leaders in trying to craft meaningful and proper war on terror detainee/terrorist policies?

In regards to transformation, he has maybe achieved 10-20% of what he wanted, and is now a spent force, so he can achieve nothing else. The next DOD secy. will likely not be nearly as interested as Rumsfeld was in transformation, and thus it will be put to the side. Its a defeat, not a victory. You can't look at the 2006 QDR and say, wow, that's a hell of a transformative doctorine.

And I do feel bad for him on this, because he honestly does believe in it and did put forth a great effort until Iraq. And it is critical to our military's future success. But so are more ground troops, particulary in the realm of civil affairs, intelligence and military police. and a few thousand more is not going to cut it.

 

[Darwins Friend]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041800544.html

In a brief question-and-answer session with reporters in the White House Rose Garden after announcing his nomination of Portman, Bush declared that Rumsfeld "is doing a fine job" and will keep his post.

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best," Bush said.

('the decider' has spoken - so let it be written, so let it be done)

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041800544.html



('the decider' has spoken - so let it be written, so let it be done)

Pity you couldn't get a "decider" like Kerry elected.
:rotflmao:

 

[archangel]

although this issue is still muddy water...I give alot of credence to Maj.Gen John Batiste as he was offered a promotion to Lt.Gen and second in command in Iraq if he stayed on but he chose retirement...so any insinuation that he is a disgruntled employee rather than a respectful and concerned one is a wash...imo


see: www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Transcript_Retired_general_says_criticism_of_0414.html

 

[Darwins Friend]

In Rumsfeld, another McNamara
Commentary by Pat Murphy

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-19-2006&ID=2005109392

"His domineering intellect and predilection for systems analysis," commentator Max Frankel wrote of the secretary of Defense, "made him a pathetic victim of erroneous and deceptive military audits ... "

Donald Rumsfeld?

No, Frankel wrote in 1995 of an earlier Defense chief, Vietnam War-era Robert (Whiz Kid) McNamara, known (like Rumsfeld) for waging war with a cost accounting mentality and telling generals he knew best.

It took McNamara 30 years to admit in his 1995 book, "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam," that "we were wrong, terribly wrong" about strategy in Vietnam that cost 47,393 U.S. combat deaths.

Rumsfeld, supremely stubborn and haughty, is unlikely to admit failings that critics, including ex-combat generals now demanding his resignation, contend have pitched Iraq into bedlam and bloody insurrection, spiked U.S. military deaths and cast doubts about Iraq's future.

President Bush's faint praise hasn't quelled criticisms of Rumsfeld's arrogant belittling of military brass and operational blunders. Bush, a dubious judge of competence, also lauded FEMA's Michael Brown for "doing a heck of a job" in the Hurricane Katrina debacle.

Rumsfeld's track record is devastating.

A nest of rightwing civilian conservatives in the Pentagon, we now know, planned the war several years before the 2003 attack. Rumsfeld spun the fantasy that Iraqis would cheer invading troops with U.S. flags.

This fairy tale explains ammunition shortages and lack of adequate body armor and shortage of armored Humvees: with cheers assured by Rumsfeld, why worry about rocket-propelled grenades?

When looters pillaged Baghdad without noticeable interference or concern from U.S. forces, Rumsfeld shrugged, "Stuff happens."

As a storm of questions about force levels battered Rumsfeld, he sniffed, "You go to war with the Army you've got." (Rumsefeld forced highly respected Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Eric K. Shinseki into retirement for telling Congress far more troops would be needed to secure peace than Rumsfeld estimated.)

Rumsfeld rejected field requests to deploy the First Cavalry Division as the insurgency worsened.

He denied use of torture. But documents reveal he received regular briefings about using dogs and other degrading abuses of Guantanamo detainees.

He disbanded the Iraqi Army, only to try rebuilding it from scratch with questionable results. Hundreds of millions of dollars have vanished in fraud. Contractors have overcharged the U.S. Treasury. All this under Rumsfeld, who remains shamelessly unrepentant.

Now, the Orwellian White House spin has begun: portraying Rumsfeld as a heroic, misunderstood military genius besieged by ungrateful, disgruntled generals who want to be molly coddled.

This is as deceitful as White House lies that justified war.

 

[jillian]

Pity you couldn't get a "decider" like Kerry elected.
:rotflmao:

now, now.... does that mean Bush is absolved from having to make good decisions?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

now, now.... does that mean Bush is absolved from having to make good decisions?

Of course not, but at least he can make them. Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it.