Powell and Rumsfeld gone in 2005?

[preemptingyou03]

When President Bush is reelected, there is some rumblings that both of these men will walk away from the job. Powell, I could sort of guess. God bless him... he's a good man, but he just doesn't fit in with this administration. This administration has a mindset and Powell simply doesn't accept it. Rumsfeld, however, if he were to leave, that would be a huge setback. Rumsfeld is key to transforming the military.

Ok, to all Bush supporters how there, if Powell and Rumsfeld leave, how would you shake up the cabinet? There is also rumblings that Tom Ridge and Ashcroft will retire.

I'd put Armitage as Sec. of State and Wolfowitz as Sec. of Def. Then, Rudy Giuliani as Sec. of Homeland Security and John McCain in charge of the Justice Dept.

Armitage is a hawk, Wolfowitz is a hawk, and Giuliani and McCain are well respected by both parties.

 

[pegwinn]

uhhh help me out here. What Transformation are you talking about? The force is already professional, talented, and well led from the junior NCO/PO up to the JCS. The trigger pullers are well trained and better paid than ever before. The benefits are second to none anywhere in America. This force is capable to perform small unit peacekeeping or whip China on an open plain. The only real problem I see is that there is too much political control going on. We should already be out of Iraq and Najaf/Falluja should've been burnt to cinders months ago (and the damn mosque too for that matter).

 

[preemptingyou03]

Obviously we have a difference of opinion. I'm pro-Bush, as are you, (it seems) but you want to "burn to cinders" areas of Iraq and leave that country. I disagree. We're there to help those people not to burn them. We're there to establish an ideological victory against Islamic estremism, not to destroy a nation, which we could have done easily anytime we wished.

The transformation I'm talking about is making the military lighter and quicker. Rumsfeld had a vision for our military coming into office and he's working on it. He's one of the biggest reasons I'm as pro-Bush as I am.

 

[pegwinn]

Obviously we have a difference of opinion. I'm pro-Bush, as are you, (it seems) but you want to "burn to cinders" areas of Iraq and leave that country. I disagree. We're there to help those people not to burn them. We're there to establish an ideological victory against Islamic estremism, not to destroy a nation, which we could have done easily anytime we wished.

The transformation I'm talking about is making the military lighter and quicker. Rumsfeld had a vision for our military coming into office and he's working on it. He's one of the biggest reasons I'm as pro-Bush as I am.

You're right, I am probush. But I forcefully believe that once you "let slip the dogs" etc, then the politicians should back off. This on again off again stuff is politically driven and places troops in body bags. Believe me, I dig diplomacy. But if your enemy is so blind then you must kill them, with the least amount of casualties as you can get. If you worry about a mosque, that your enemy is using to shoot at your troops from, you will lose.

I would love to see nothing but rebuilding going on. But, when the people we are their to save do not want to shoulder any of the burden......... It was one thing when SH had not been captured and his military still was effective. But now, the Iraqis must stand and deliver to earn the rest of the reward we offer.

The transformation is bunk. We have a light, lean, mean, and very competant force. They are called Marines. Man for Man they are the best fighters anywhere. The Army of the USA is supposed to be huge, massive, and unstoppable force of nature. Marines will never, ever, win the war. That is the Army's job.

Over the past several years the Army tried to redefine itself by getting lighter. I think that it is a waste and sends mixed signals to some dedicated professionals (soldiers). Marines kick in the door and kill anything that moves. Then step aside and let the Army invest the building while Marines are kicking in the next door. Now if you put the Air Force in charge of taking real estate, they will get a three year lease with an option to buy.

 

[HGROKIT]

Now if you put the Air Force in charge of taking real estate, they will get a three year lease with an option to buy.

I was so with you util this comment (12 years active duty A.F).

I will remind you however, that the AF mission is not "taking real estate"; it is close air support, interdiction and oh lest I forget, dropping a bomb or two.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I was so with you util this comment (12 years active duty A.F).

I will remind you however, that the AF mission is not "taking real estate"; it is close air support, interdiction and oh lest I forget, dropping a bomb or two.

the air force does 'close air support'? I thought they were for dropping long range weapons and aerial superiority while the marines did close air support

 

[pegwinn]

I was so with you util this comment (12 years active duty A.F).

I will remind you however, that the AF mission is not "taking real estate"; it is close air support, interdiction and oh lest I forget, dropping a bomb or two.

I did that to see if you and PR would rise to it. 50% aint bad. And any method of taking down a building that doesn't involve me toting back a wounded Marine is all good. So, lease or bomb, your call.

 

[HGROKIT]

the air force does 'close air support'? I thought they were for dropping long range weapons and aerial superiority while the marines did close air support

There you go thinking again! :teeth:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...tart=6&prev=/images?q=a-10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8

I am sure there are a couple grunts around that can appreciate this bit of close air support.

 

[HGROKIT]

A few others from Jane's

http://fasttrack.janes.com/janesdata/ft/17/18/26/

 

[pegwinn]

A few others from Jane's

http://fasttrack.janes.com/janesdata/ft/17/18/26/

This would be the shit...........

http://www.grouchymedia.com/videos/taliban_bodies/download.cfm

 

[HGROKIT]

This would be the shit...........

http://www.grouchymedia.com/videos/taliban_bodies/download.cfm

Damn, am at work so I'll have to wait until I get home

 

[Merlin1047]

the air force does 'close air support'? I thought they were for dropping long range weapons and aerial superiority while the marines did close air support

They do in fact do some close air support. But they don't like it. That's why they've been trying to get rid of the A-10 for the last ten years.

 

[Merlin1047]

uhhh help me out here. What Transformation are you talking about? The force is already professional, talented, and well led from the junior NCO/PO up to the JCS. The trigger pullers are well trained and better paid than ever before. The benefits are second to none anywhere in America. This force is capable to perform small unit peacekeeping or whip China on an open plain. The only real problem I see is that there is too much political control going on. We should already be out of Iraq and Najaf/Falluja should've been burnt to cinders months ago (and the damn mosque too for that matter).

Our forces, especially the Army, do need some "transformation". I'm not being critical of training or the quality of personnel. But our equipment and our tactical philosophy is still based largely on the demands of the cold war. The Army needs to update their tactics to intensify urban conflict training. Equipment needs to be more agile and lighter. Units need to be reformed into self-supporting combat groups that are highly mobile and readily deployable. We need to be able to sustain operations from very temporary forward bases and become less reliant on large, static installations. Training and equipment to defeat chemical and biological weapons needs to continue to be improved. Personal ballistic protection is also an area of concern. UAV capability as well as communications still need vast improvement.

But all this is extremely expensive and it's not going to happen overnight or perhaps never should kerry be elected.

 

[freeandfun1]

the air force does 'close air support'? I thought they were for dropping long range weapons and aerial superiority while the marines did close air support

You have forgotten the wart-hogs. An Army Infantryman's best friend.

 

[freeandfun1]

They do in fact do some close air support. But they don't like it. That's why they've been trying to get rid of the A-10 for the last ten years.

The only reason they kept the A10's was cuz the Army said that if they do, then the Army wanted permission to fly them. The AF was not going to have any of that.

 

[Merlin1047]

The only reason they kept the A10's was cuz the Army said that if they do, then the Army wanted permission to fly them. The AF was not going to have any of that.

Actually, the Air Force was ready to hand the A-10 over to the Army. The Army refused the transaction when they discovered the cost of the parts and maintenance contract that went with the deal.

 

[5stringJeff]

Having been quite involved in Army transformation, I will say that it is a very worthwhile effort. The Army had a great heavy force and a great light force; now, with the Strykers, they have a great medium force.

 

[freeandfun1]

Actually, the Air Force was ready to hand the A-10 over to the Army. The Army refused the transaction when they discovered the cost of the parts and maintenance contract that went with the deal.

Wonder Warthog

in the Seventies, the US Army decided it wanted a new close air support craft, a modern replacement for the venerable A-1 Skyraider, actually a late WWII design. The Air Force had no aircraft which met the Army's specifications, and showed little interest in obtaining one. The Army generously offered to build, fly and maintain the plane themselves. Well, the Air Force couldn't have that...

 

[Merlin1047]

Wonder Warthog

All I can tell you is that what I posted came directly from the general officer who was involved in talks with the Air Force. If memory serves, I believe that this took place around 1990 (approx). But perhaps a better question would be - Why the hell are we risking carpal tunnel syndrome just to pick the nits out of something that makes no difference to begin with?

 

[freeandfun1]

All I can tell you is that what I posted came directly from the general officer who was involved in talks with the Air Force. If memory serves, I believe that this took place around 1990 (approx). But perhaps a better question would be - Why the hell are we risking carpal tunnel syndrome just to pick the nits out of something that makes no difference to begin with?

Agreed. The Apache will/can easily replace the value the A10 provides on the battlefield anyway.