Rumsfeld Betrays The Troops AGAIN!

GunnyL said:
Y'know, I used to enjoy most of your posts. Sems lately they've been rather tainted with radical leftism.

Deployment get to you?

I wouldn't call Ralph Peters a radical leftist by any means. The problem here is that any valid criticism of the Pentagon, Bush or the war effort has become "defeatist" or "leftist". This is utterly wrong. Our leaders are leading the nation down the wrong path, especially our military. It isn't about whether the war in Iraq was the right decision (it was) but the aftermath, and the fact that no one has paid for or even faced up to what they did wrong, and in the case of Rumsfeld, the horrendous damage done to the war effort and the military by his bonehead decisions and arrogance. I'm not the only one to say this, plenty of neo conservatives and conservatives from Elliot Cohen to Bill Kristol have said much of the same thing, in often even harsher terms.

Our QDR is pathetic. Instead of bold leadership, we have more of the same, driven by a defense industry that is run amok, desperate to use China's rise as an excuse to purchase every expensive weapons system under the sun with little regard for what we really need.

We're dealing with failed states here. You think its bad now? Imagine three-four years from now when we have a Syrian civil war to handle, perhaps even a Saudi civil war as well. Hell, what if Pakistan goes to shit? How will our big ticket weapons systems designed for war with the Soviets going to help us then? What good is an F-22 when you need 100,000 ground troops in Syria?
Look at South America.... Chavez is destablizing every country down there, and may very well end up tottering Colombia over the edge.

If we succeed in Iraq and in the broader Middle East in the next five-ten years (which I sincerely, sincerely hope we do, and we very well might, if we play our cards right and keep our resolve in Iraq), we will end up pushing these terrorists into Africa, where there will be more failed and failing states for us to invade, attack and stabilize.

So what I'm saying is, EVERY sign points towards a great need for more ground troops, not for Iraq but for the future, towards a great need for vastly expanded intelligence, civil affairs and special forces (which to Rummy's credit, 8,000 more are on the way according to the QDR, but 1 out of 3 ain't cutting it), towards a real die-hard push towards a boots on the ground mentality, not a pie in the sky razzle and dazzle show.

Yet this is not what we're getting. We're getting a military outlook that literally salivates towards conflict with China, or foolishly trying to contain China, while ignoring the great opportunities we have to remake the Navy for the war on terror and the great arc of instability that we will be dealing with around the world.
 
NATO AIR said:
I wouldn't call Ralph Peters a radical leftist by any means. The problem here is that any valid criticism of the Pentagon, Bush or the war effort has become "defeatist" or "leftist". This is utterly wrong. Our leaders are leading the nation down the wrong path, especially our military. It isn't about whether the war in Iraq was the right decision (it was) but the aftermath, and the fact that no one has paid for or even faced up to what they did wrong, and in the case of Rumsfeld, the horrendous damage done to the war effort and the military by his bonehead decisions and arrogance. I'm not the only one to say this, plenty of neo conservatives and conservatives from Elliot Cohen to Bill Kristol have said much of the same thing, in often even harsher terms.

Our QDR is pathetic. Instead of bold leadership, we have more of the same, driven by a defense industry that is run amok, desperate to use China's rise as an excuse to purchase every expensive weapons system under the sun with little regard for what we really need.

We're dealing with failed states here. You think its bad now? Imagine three-four years from now when we have a Syrian civil war to handle, perhaps even a Saudi civil war as well. Hell, what if Pakistan goes to shit? How will our big ticket weapons systems designed for war with the Soviets going to help us then? What good is an F-22 when you need 100,000 ground troops in Syria?
Look at South America.... Chavez is destablizing every country down there, and may very well end up tottering Colombia over the edge.

If we succeed in Iraq and in the broader Middle East in the next five-ten years (which I sincerely, sincerely hope we do, and we very well might, if we play our cards right and keep our resolve in Iraq), we will end up pushing these terrorists into Africa, where there will be more failed and failing states for us to invade, attack and stabilize.

So what I'm saying is, EVERY sign points towards a great need for more ground troops, not for Iraq but for the future, towards a great need for vastly expanded intelligence, civil affairs and special forces (which to Rummy's credit, 8,000 more are on the way according to the QDR, but 1 out of 3 ain't cutting it), towards a real die-hard push towards a boots on the ground mentality, not a pie in the sky razzle and dazzle show.

Yet this is not what we're getting. We're getting a military outlook that literally salivates towards conflict with China, or foolishly trying to contain China, while ignoring the great opportunities we have to remake the Navy for the war on terror and the great arc of instability that we will be dealing with around the world.


I hear what you're saying NATO. I really like nearly all that Ralph Peters writes. I guess I get a bit skittish with some of his anti-people such as Rumsfeld, though not necessarily what he speaks about regarding the military-industrial agency. Rumsfeld for instance no doubt has flaws, but his committment to a 'new force' may be wrong, but not corrupt. Unlike some of the military and much of the politicos, he will not be looking at Lockheed or even Boeing, convenient though it might be to his home, to make him $$$. He already did that.

I've read his writings about the size of the military, I'd say he's right, NOW. I don't think that necessarily to prior to 9/11, the Axis of Evil Speech, and the Iran problem. The numbers increase as we are truly looking at the costs and dangers facing us, without substantial, robust allies. More than ever those troops we do have, need to have the best technology available, for I do not think the able allies are going to increase very quickly.

Someone can be totally correct on their take of many things, over a long period of time, and one can disagree with them over an issue. It happens.
 
Kathianne said:
I hear what you're saying NATO. I really like nearly all that Ralph Peters writes. I guess I get a bit skittish with some of his anti-people such as Rumsfeld, though not necessarily what he speaks about regarding the military-industrial agency. Rumsfeld for instance no doubt has flaws, but his committment to a 'new force' may be wrong, but not corrupt. Unlike some of the military and much of the politicos, he will not be looking at Lockheed or even Boeing, convenient though it might be to his home, to make him $$$. He already did that.

I've read his writings about the size of the military, I'd say he's right, NOW. I don't think that necessarily to prior to 9/11, the Axis of Evil Speech, and the Iran problem. The numbers increase as we are truly looking at the costs and dangers facing us, without substantial, robust allies. More than ever those troops we do have, need to have the best technology available, for I do not think the able allies are going to increase very quickly.

Someone can be totally correct on their take of many things, over a long period of time, and one can disagree with them over an issue. It happens.

I do agree Peters goes over the top, often :D . So do I. I will admit my hatred for Rumsfeld often gets in the way of my thinking, but that's my utter contempt for this man. He seems to reach new lows every month. Perhaps it runs in the family, my father entered Vietnam (in this case, we diverge, i am not in iraq, cannot go to Iraq because my ship won't release me, and probably won't get to go) appreciative of McNamerra and left disillusioned and furious with him.

Our entire system is flawed. Retired 4 stars leave the service and go right to work for contractors and companies involved in acquisitions and purchases. Our politicians refuse to put national security above their state's narrow interests, leading to costly stalemates, policy paralysis and serious budget flaws that could be easily avoided if we had politicians who actually gave a damn about the military and our country's security. Our civilians in the Pentagon are often entirely too idealogical (both on the left, under Clinton, and on the neoconservative end- under Bush) and that gets in the way of vital decision making that should be sober and cold-blooded.

Must I go on about how our military is being endangered by the increasing overreliance on private contractors for vital roles once done by troops who now lack the training and the skills to fill those roles if the contractor balks or can't get the employees for the job? (again, this started under Clinton, not Bush II)

The military-industrial complex is winning, and America is losing. Rumsfeld used to "get it", now he doesn't. Our military leaders don't get it, aside from a few who must keep their mouths shut for fear of their careers being ended early.
 
NATO AIR said:
I do agree Peters goes over the top, often :D . So do I. I will admit my hatred for Rumsfeld often gets in the way of my thinking, but that's my utter contempt for this man. He seems to reach new lows every month. Perhaps it runs in the family, my father entered Vietnam (in this case, we diverge, i am not in iraq, cannot go to Iraq because my ship won't release me, and probably won't get to go) appreciative of McNamerra and left disillusioned and furious with him.

Our entire system is flawed. Retired 4 stars leave the service and go right to work for contractors and companies involved in acquisitions and purchases. Our politicians refuse to put national security above their state's narrow interests, leading to costly stalemates, policy paralysis and serious budget flaws that could be easily avoided if we had politicians who actually gave a damn about the military and our country's security. Our civilians in the Pentagon are often entirely too idealogical (both on the left, under Clinton, and on the neoconservative end- under Bush) and that gets in the way of vital decision making that should be sober and cold-blooded.

Must I go on about how our military is being endangered by the increasing overreliance on private contractors for vital roles once done by troops who now lack the training and the skills to fill those roles if the contractor balks or can't get the employees for the job? (again, this started under Clinton, not Bush II)

The military-industrial complex is winning, and America is losing. Rumsfeld used to "get it", now he doesn't. Our military leaders don't get it, aside from a few who must keep their mouths shut for fear of their careers being ended early.


Perhaps you are hearing more from Rumsfeld than I. At this point in time, I would say it's difficult to know what he has 'learned' in the past 3 years. My guess, based on what I've seen, a lot. Again, I could be wrong, but he strikes me as a very hyper guy, very smart, too impatient with others, BUT very hard on himself down the road. Time will tell.
 
Kathianne said:
Perhaps you are hearing more from Rumsfeld than I. At this point in time, I would say it's difficult to know what he has 'learned' in the past 3 years. My guess, based on what I've seen, a lot. Again, I could be wrong, but he strikes me as a very hyper guy, very smart, too impatient with others, BUT very hard on himself down the road. Time will tell.

I think I use Rumsfeld as a lightning rod for criticism too much. The senators, represenatives and government officials are just as bad, if not worse.
 
NATO AIR said:
I think I use Rumsfeld as a lightning rod for criticism too much. The senators, represenatives and government officials are just as bad, if not worse.
Perhaps unfairly, :dunno: , I agree with that. Seems that most of those that serve 'at the pleasure of...' tend to already have made their mark. Too many of the elected are in need of money. Congressional salaries and the 'glitz' of winning elections might seem great to many in suburban, rural areas, but the cost for families and two abodes is draining. I think they often feel they have 'earned' their lobbying positions and salaries after 'retiring' or 'losing.' Just my prejudice.
 
Kathianne said:
Perhaps unfairly, :dunno: , I agree with that. Seems that most of those that serve 'at the pleasure of...' tend to already have made their mark. Too many of the elected are in need of money. Congressional salaries and the 'glitz' of winning elections might seem great to many in suburban, rural areas, but the cost for families and two abodes is draining. I think they often feel they have 'earned' their lobbying positions and salaries after 'retiring' or 'losing.' Just my prejudice.

When you read Peters' "counterrevolution" article from the Weekly Standard last week, did you see what he said about what a war with China would look like?

They sure as hell don't give a shit about our aircraft carriers and jets.

They're going after the ultra vulnureable computer systems that guide and sustain them.

What good is our high-tech military if we're not taking the measures to protect it from high-tech systems assassins?

As well as the total joke that Homeland Security is, but that is not Rumsfeld's fault, nor for that matter, really Congress's fault. This was Bush's baby all the way, and what an ugly monster it is and will continue to be.
 
NATO AIR said:
When you read Peters' "counterrevolution" article from the Weekly Standard last week, did you see what he said about what a war with China would look like?

They sure as hell don't give a shit about our aircraft carriers and jets.

They're going after the ultra vulnureable computer systems that guide and sustain them.

What good is our high-tech military if we're not taking the measures to protect it from high-tech systems assassins?

As well as the total joke that Homeland Security is, but that is not Rumsfeld's fault, nor for that matter, really Congress's fault. This was Bush's baby all the way, and what an ugly monster it is and will continue to be.
Actually Homeland Security is the fault of GW's capitulation to the Congressional Democrats, but as he didn't have to capitulate, I agree. I also agree with you about China and size, again though what I said-we can never match a China in numbers, thus what troops, ships, planes we DO have, must have the best equipment we can develop. On the other hand, there is no way that anyone could sell me again that smart bombs will take the place of troops.
 
Kathianne said:
Actually Homeland Security is the fault of GW's capitulation to the Congressional Democrats, but as he didn't have to capitulate, I agree. I also agree with you about China and size, again though what I said-we can never match a China in numbers, thus what troops, ships, planes we DO have, must have the best equipment we can develop. On the other hand, there is no way that anyone could sell me again that smart bombs will take the place of troops.

yes, please forgive me, he did give in to too many of their demands, but that was our misguided bi-partisanship of the past when we actually thought we could trust the dems to work with us on security.

we would have to kill hundreds of millions of Chinese to win. that wouldn't happen.
 
NATO AIR said:
yes, please forgive me, he did give in to too many of their demands, but that was our misguided bi-partisanship of the past when we actually thought we could trust the dems to work with us on security.

we would have to kill hundreds of millions of Chinese to win. that wouldn't happen.

I think it could happen, though for all the reasons given for economics I don't think it will. Now again, history is full of unreasonable events for any variety of reasons.
 
Kathianne said:
I think it could happen, though for all the reasons given for economics I don't think it will. Now again, history is full of unreasonable events for any variety of reasons.

True. I think they'd kill a hundred million or more Americans as well.

i just read Frank Gaffney's "War Footing", I really, really am starting to feel the urgency in that book now. We HAVE to get serious about defending ourselves and preparing for the future.
 
NATO AIR said:
True. I think they'd kill a hundred million or more Americans as well.

i just read Frank Gaffney's "War Footing", I really, really am starting to feel the urgency in that book now. We HAVE to get serious about defending ourselves and preparing for the future.

I've been feeling that way for the past 2 years. Everywhere one looks; our enemies, friends, former allies, danger is at hand. As I've been repeatedly saying for a few years, this reminds me on so many levels of 1911. Not good.
 
Kathianne said:
I've been feeling that way for the past 2 years. Everywhere one looks; our enemies, friends, former allies, danger is at hand. As I've been repeatedly saying for a few years, this reminds me on so many levels of 1911. Not good.

Let's all hope to God we're not right.

Time to hit the floor running at Olympic speeds to secure better relationships with India, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia. We can't give up on Russia either, even though its highly tempting.
 
NATO AIR said:
Let's all hope to God we're not right.

Time to hit the floor running at Olympic speeds to secure better relationships with India, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia. We can't give up on Russia either, even though its highly tempting.

Indonesia may be lost already. :dunno:
 
NATO AIR said:
don't believe me, check out ralph peters.
our military leaders and their civilian masters at the pentagon are selling out the troops and the country. the defense contractors are running the show, ruining our nation's future standing and capability to fight the real enemies we will face in the coming years, while our troops are fighting and dying in a war they already are busy forgetting about.
This is damn near treason, as bad as the libs who demand we cut and run from Iraq.


Of course they want to spend more money on F/A-22 fighter jets. Aeronautical companies can lobby Congressmen and Senators and make huge campaign contributions, soldiers, who get paid squat compared to the contractors they are protecting in Iraq, cannot.

This is how it works. Pentagon spending is partially about defense, but mostly its about putting money into the pockets of big defense contractors. Sure - these contractors provide work to thousands of people, but should we continue to buy military equipment we don't even need when the only real legitimate reason we have is to keep people from being laid off? Why not just give them the money instead, wouldn't that be cheaper?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
THis is just anti mechanization propaganda, nato. Some are AFRAID of the techno military we can build.

How is an F/A-22 going to protect us when 9/11 comes again anymore than the fighters we have now? When you're going up againt passenger airlines, you just don't need that much advanced technology to take one down!


Who exactly would we be fighting with these jets? Our warplanes are already the most advanced in the world BY FAR, so unless you plan on attacking Israel anytime soon, there's really no point in it except to put money into the pockets of the contractor who are building. Its a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars.
 
NATO, NATO, NATO....

Did you read anything I posted? Have you seen the QDR? I have and I can tell you that it is being totally misrepresented by those opinionists.

Does the defense industry make money? You betcha. Do they sometimes sell a pig in a poke? You betcha. Do retired generals (and all other ranks) get jobs with defense contractors after they retire? You betcha. Do contracotrs sometimes have to support and even operate the complex systems that are curretnly fielded? You betcha.

I will say this...I would rather have retired military joining the defense contractor teams out there than some college kid who doesn't know crap. At least the retired military guy has a glimmer of an idea of what the troops need and what works. There is no doubt that some of the systems cost a lot of money and there are good reasons for this.


Let us take the F-22. What makes it so special? It is not that it can fly higher and faster or carries a whole lot more firepower. What makes it really unique is that it is network enabled. What does that mean? Currently, most aircraft have voice communications only. That means when a soldier calls for an air strike, request has to go from the soldier, up through comm channels and over to the aircraft...alll by voice. In order to assure the ordnance is dropped in the right place (correct coordinates) at the right time, the data has to be repeated NINE times over that comm channel. This process can take anywhere from 20 minutes to a couple of hours.....not very efficient either. With network enabled aircraft the process takes seconds or at most a couple of minutes. Being networked enabled means the pilot can download imagery of the target, the GPS positions of friendly troops near the target and just about any other information he needs to reduce fratricide and have good effects on the enemy. Being networked enabled allows ground crews to monitor aircraft and pilot status too. It means reconnaissance data can be sent back to ground bases and soldiers in real time, giving them critical situational awareness as it happens and not having to wait until the aircraft lands, the recon data is downloaded to a computer from a pod, and the pilot is debriefed.

You cannot imagine (most people can't) the amount of research and development that goes in to this. It sounds simple..."Just put a computer in the plane" but what folks fail to realize is that you have to get a signal to the plane somehow that is capable of carrying encrypted digital traffic (two way). Things like antenna placement on the aircraft can cause the signal to be lost when the plane banks in a turn because the wings shadow the antenna....this is equivalent to your computer crashing at home and having to reboot...not good in combat. Things like co-site interference need to be addressed (for example, the plane's radar interfering with its radio). These are just a couple of the many many technical challenges that have to be resolved. Guess what. All that costs money.

People yelll and scream that he troops should have the right equipment when we send them to war. Those same people scream when they have to pay for it. They also think they are qualified to tell the military what they need when most of them have never experienced anything like combat. The closest they come is an overnight camping trip at a state park.

I sincerely wish that those who bitch about defense contractors and the defense industry would spend a few weeks on the ground in a combat environment. Then come back, tell us what they need. I would send them to WalMart, Radio Shack and any other commercial retailer to find it. I would wish them good luck with it. The military's needs are dynamic, they change with situation.
 
SpidermanTuba said:
How is an F/A-22 going to protect us when 9/11 comes again anymore than the fighters we have now? When you're going up againt passenger airlines, you just don't need that much advanced technology to take one down!


Who exactly would we be fighting with these jets? Our warplanes are already the most advanced in the world BY FAR, so unless you plan on attacking Israel anytime soon, there's really no point in it except to put money into the pockets of the contractor who are building. Its a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars.


What if you're wrong? I'd rather show up to a casual event in a tuxedo than show up to a wedding in a hula skirt like you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top