Rumsfeld's War

[White knight]

Rumsfeld's War
FRONTLINE and The Washington Post join forces for the first time to investigate Donald Rumsfeld's contentious battle with the Pentagon bureaucracy to assert civilian control of the military and remake the way America fights.

With the United States Army deployed in a dozen hotspots around the world—on constant alert in Afghanistan and taking casualties almost every day in Iraq—some current and former officers now say the army is on the verge of being broken. The man responsible, according to those officers, is a secretary of defense who came into the Pentagon determined to transform the shape of the military.
In "Rumsfeld's War," FRONTLINE and The Washington Post join forces for the first time to investigate Donald Rumsfeld's contentious battle with the Pentagon bureaucracy to assert civilian control of the military and remake the way America fights.
This report traces Donald Rumsfeld's career from his time as an adviser to President Nixon to his rise as the oft-seen and well-known face of the George W. Bush administration during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In interviews with key administration officials, military leaders, and reporters from The Washington Post, the documentary examines how a secretary of defense bent on reform became a secretary of war accused of ignoring the advice of his generals.
"He came in determined to reassert civilian control over the Joint Staff and the rest of the military and it was a pretty tough process, a lot of friction in those first months, with Rumsfeld saying, `No, I don't think you heard me clearly. I'm the boss. I want it this way,'" reporter Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post tells FRONTLINE.
In the early months of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld saw his biggest enemy as the outdated Cold War thinking of the troops he commanded. "Donald Rumsfeld wanted to build a smaller, nimbler, and more networked military that could respond swiftly to threats anywhere in the world. He came into the Defense Department where the forces were heavy and slow, took months to deploy and worked best when used in massive numbers," says Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
Former Secretary of the Army Thomas White says that when Rumsfeld tried to push for a reduction in the number of troops in the army, the secretary found himself clashing with General Eric Shinseki, the army's respected Chief of Staff.
"There were very strongly held views, myself and General Shinseki and others in the room, that this was not the right answer," White says of one meeting with Rumsfeld. "The secretary, he just got up and walked out, which was a signal to all of us that he wasn't terribly happy with the results of the meeting."
To the Pentagon generals, Rumsfeld's sharp elbows and strong views on the military came across as insulting. But those who know him best say that Rumsfeld's unorthodox style is hardly a surprise. Robert Ellsworth, longtime friend, former ambassador to the UN and also former deputy to Rumsfeld, says that as a wrestler in college, Rumsfeld learned to always stay on the move.
"He has a very sharp tongue as well as sharp elbows. And he knows how to use salty language. And he didn't hold back even against these senior bureaucrats, senior officers. He let them have it because he was in a hurry," Ellsworth says.
By the eve of September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld's sharp tongue and tough attitude had gotten him into plenty of fights and created a number of enemies.
"Inside the beltway, there are all these discussions about `Well, who's going to be the first cabinet secretary to leave this administration?'" defense analyst Andrew Krepinevich tells FRONTLINE. "And the early betting line is it could be Don Rumsfeld. And of course then 9/11 happens, and as the saying goes `That changes everything.'"
As the United States prepared to respond to the attacks of September 11, Rumsfeld pushed a reluctant military to think unconventionally about going to war in Afghanistan. Dissatisfied with the plan for a large-scale invasion that he received from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Rumsfeld turned to the Pentagon's Special Operations forces.
"He is willing to start military operations in Afghanistan before most of the military thinks that we're ready to do so. And [a] small number of special forces soldiers combined with CIA support for indigenous Afghan resistance forces brings about spectacular results," Krepinevich says.
When the president's attention turned towards Iraq, Rumsfeld pushed his war planners to think outside the box. Emboldened by his success in Afghanistan, the secretary once again pushed aside Pentagon critics and demanded an unconventional war plan.
"Rumsfeld thinks you can re-invent [the] war plan," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward tells FRONTLINE, "And anything that smacks of the old way or something that looks conventional to him, he asks questions about. Doesn't necessarily oppose it, but will ask questions about it, and is looking to make this quicker, with less force and with less casualties."
Now, the secretary's critics allege that Rumsfeld's push for unconventional thinking effectively marginalized advice about troop strength, post-war planning, and the treatment of prisoners.
"I think to a degree, he's stubborn. Being stubborn, holding to your convictions is good to a point, but when the evidence around you indicates your position is not tenable, then you ought to start adapting to the situation," says retired USMC Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.
That stubbornness, some officers say, led Rumsfeld to put the military in the difficult position of fighting in simultaneous conflicts against an unconventional enemy. With mounting casualties in Iraq and without a clear exit strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, Rumsfeld's critics charge the secretary has pushed too far. The danger, they say, is a military incapable of effectively fighting the next major conflict.
Former CENTCOM Commander-in-Chief General Joseph Hoar (Ret.) tells FRONTLINE, "Today we find over fifty percent of the United States Army, the regular army, ten divisions, committed overseas. It's not sustainable."
Rumsfeld, however, has stood firm in his assessment that U.S. fighting forces are more than capable of handling these or future conflicts, recently telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that with over 2.5 million Americans already enlisted, the military's problem is management of resources, not recruitment
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/synopsis.html

After viewing this piece, you gain insight into the dynamics and inner workings of the Administration and Pentagon.
The ghost of Vietnam is looming in the background. Many of these “Ol Boys” who had their hands in Vietnam appear to have undue influence on the show in Iraq today.

The story suggest, we find ourselves again getting bogged down in War, due to Civilian planner interference, either they have not learned past lessons, which would suggest incompetence. Or the intent from the beginning was to break things so you can later offer a solution to fix them. These are the only logical conclusions I could arrive at for now.

I recognized more of the Civilian sector patterns of sidestepping, going around, and steam rolling right over the experts. When the competent experts did not come onboard and follow the game plan, they just found an incompetent stooge who would and replaced them
.
This Planning went against the Powell Doctrine; he opposed many things and was shut out.
I can’t wait to hear what he has to say after the election, and for the books to come out about this.

 

[freeandfun1]

Rumsfeld is unpopular to many in the miliary because he dared to change it. The military was caught up in a cold-war mentality and the Generals wanted to have large, slow moving, heavy armour units. Rummy came in and said, BS, we are going to change all this and he did. A lot of generals were upset and quit over it. Ask anybody STILL in the military (officers especially) and they will tell you the military is MUCH better than it was. I read Franks' book and he covers this a lot and he supports Rummy 100%.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

After viewing this piece, you gain insight into the dynamics and inner workings of the Administration and Pentagon.
The ghost of Vietnam is looming in the background. Many of these “Ol Boys” who had their hands in Vietnam appear to have undue influence on the show in Iraq today.

The story suggest, we find ourselves again getting bogged down in War, due to Civilian planner interference, either they have not learned past lessons, which would suggest incompetence. Or the intent from the beginning was to break things so you can later offer a solution to fix them. These are the only logical conclusions I could arrive at for now.

I recognized more of the Civilian sector patterns of sidestepping, going around, and steam rolling right over the experts. When the competent experts did not come onboard and follow the game plan, they just found an incompetent stooge who would and replaced them
.
This Planning went against the Powell Doctrine; he opposed many things and was shut out.
I can’t wait to hear what he has to say after the election, and for the books to come out about this.

White Knight. Our armed services are controlled by civilians. By law, by intention. You make it sound as if rumsfeld is overstepping his bounds; he's not. The civilian leadership is in no way bound to do what the career military says. So give it a rest, would ya? There's nothing to see here.

 

[White knight]

I like some of his changes also; it was a very stagnant old guard system.
He has made many improvements.

 

[NATO AIR]

i like how he has convinced the navy to go to a new fleet response system. no longer do carrier battle groups go out for six months at a time for no reason at all sometimes, they go out for however long it takes to get a job done (show of force, training exercise, war, intervention)

in other words, the rest of the navy has become just like us here in japan, ready to deploy whenever, wherever, whatever

 

[White knight]

Seriously NATO, you like beinging at the ready 24/7?

After seeing your Post about the investigation of Halliburton, I thought of another reason to go to War unprepared, and prolong it, Make lots of money for your network of friends, Just like they did in Vietnam.

 

[NATO AIR]

Seriously NATO, you like beinging at the ready 24/7?

After seeing your Post about the investigation of Halliburton, I thought of another reason to go to War unprepared, and prolong it, Make lots of money for your old boy network of friends, Just like you did in Vietnam.

haha, oh i don't like being ready 24/7, but if i have to be, damnit the rest of the navy will be too. they don't go through one-tenth of what we go through here, and its about time they started living and serving in the post 9/11 navy like we have for the last 3 years. when we have to work together in the future, we have to be on the same page and they need to be close to our level of effeciency and performance.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Seriously NATO, you like beinging at the ready 24/7?

After seeing your Post about the investigation of Halliburton, I thought of another reason to go to War unprepared, and prolong it, Make lots of money for your old boy network of friends, Just like you did in Vietnam.

Would you rather the reconstruction work be outsourced to our pseudoallies?

 

[sagegirl]

Frontline was great....it should have been on in prime time, I watched from 10 to 11:30, I dont suppose some of the people that needed to see it got the chance.

 

[Zhukov]

After viewing this piece, you gain insight into the dynamics and inner workings of the Administration and Pentagon.

Ha! This is the show I mentioned watching in the "Politically Incorrect sucked" thread.

It would have been funny if it weren't actually an insidious piece of left-wing propaganda whose sole purpose is to hurt the President's re-election effort.

If the roles were reversed the DNC would be hiring lawyers and encouraging a boycott.

 

[White knight]

The lesson we learned from Gulf War One, was not to let the civilians micro manage the War, let the military experts come up with the plans.

 

[dilloduck]

The lesson we learned from Gulf War One, was not to let the civilians micro manage the War, let the military experts come up with the plans.

What if the people we elect to represent us feel as if the military plans would do more harm than good?--No checks on the military? Interesting.

 

[Zhukov]

The lesson we learned from Gulf War One, was not to let the civilians micro manage the War, let the military experts come up with the plans.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What does a military expert know about rebuilding the physical and governmental infrastructure of a battered country?

The war wasn't micro managed by civilians. The military drove in and crushed the enemy. The war was over in three weeks.

The diffuculties associated with what's going on in Iraq right now are not the sort of thing our military officers wargame, and the decisions being made now require input from more people than just generals.

 

[White knight]

Watch the liberal piece of propaganda and then come back to debate,

The military plans would have allowed sufficient force to take and secure the country. Gen. Shinseki testified before Senate Armed Service Committee that he wanted several hundred thousand troops to secure the country. The civilians wanted a much lower number, they end up settling somewhere in between.

It’s not like they did not have the Forces, I know, I saw MEF’s go over spend one week towards the end of the major battles and turn around and come right back.
The civilians miss calculated; as a result looting and a state of lawlessness ensued.
Military planners know how to maintain law and order, they should have atleast been able to plan for security operations.

 

[Zhukov]

Watch the liberal piece of propaganda and then come back to debate,

I watched it days before you started this little thread. And sorry if I don't want to take Bob Woodward's word on what Sec. Rumsfeld should have done.

Gen. Shinseki testified before Senate Armed Service Committee that he wanted several hundred thousand troops to secure the country.

Yes, and few agreed with him. In fact I think that propaganda piece provided only a single person, also out, who did. Then the propaganda piece proceeded to make fun of Gen. Franks, implying he was some retarded southern farm boy just because he didn't think we needed 300,000 soldiers.

The civilians wanted a much lower number, they end up settling somewhere in between.

That's right, Sec. Rumsfeld wanted 50,000 soldiers, and a force of 10,000 pre-trained Iraqis. He wanted to crush the Iraqi forces and then leave to avoid giving the impression of an occupation. Like we have right now.

Gen. Shinseki wanted a force of 300,000 or so and planned on a prolonged occupation. Few thought that was a good idea. Gen. Shinseki's plan would have been too cumbersome for the lightning attack the Pentagon wanted. And few wanted a prolonged occupation.

Part of the problem was the compromise up, not the compromise down. Another was the fact that the Iraqi force was never trained to avoid the impression that the war was inevitable.

If anyone was frustrated it was Sec. Rumsfeld himself.

The civilians miss calculated; as a result looting and a state of lawlessness ensued.

Sec. Rumsfeld provided the President with pages, with a problem a line, of every conceivable thing they thought could go wrong. The military commanders on the ground didn't want to shoot the looters as they should have.

It's very easy to look back and complain.

Military planners know how to maintain law and order, they should have atleast been able to plan for security operations.

Who says they didn't? It's called Phase 4, and the war ended so quickly there was a delay getting all the MPs in. They had a plan, and they are implementing it. This notion that there was no plan is ridiculous. These people "don't take a shit without a plan."

I know I'm a fascist, and a cold hearted son-of-a-bitch, but considering what our military has accomplished I consider our casualties light. It could be a whole hell of a lot worse.

 

[White knight]

They had a plan, and they are implementing it.This notion that there was no plan is ridiculous. These people "don't take a shit without a plan."

I know I'm a fascist, and a cold hearted son-of-a-bitch, but considering what our military has accomplished I consider our casualties light. It could be a whole hell of a lot worse.

That is what I have known all along; these people are not stupid or incompetent as they lead people to believe. They like to spin the public’s head around so they don’t know what is going on.
Yes they had a plan, it was to forget the success of the Powell doctrine and put Powell himself in a corner.
Go in light and let the resistance grow so they can prolong the War and siphon the public coffers into their own pockets.

I’m probably a sicker dog then you, for a moment I thought that it would at least purge off some of the population, helping the plan of population control.

 

[Zhukov]

That is what I have known all along

Yep.

for a moment I thought that it would at least purge off some of the population, helping the plan of population control.

No, they have an engineered plague virus for that coming out next year, just in time for Christmas.

 

[Zhukov]

I will be sure to get my flu shots then, thanks for the tip.

How do you think they are planning on spreading it?

 

[White knight]

My reputation is floundering, -17

I hard to believe that there are neo-cons out there who just do not care about our brave young men and women fighting in a War, while the people who put them in that mismanaged, situation are profiting off of it politically and financially.
KBR is double dipping at both ends. They have the GOP, Grand Old Petroleum, by the balls both ways. Making money on the oil field contracts, making money on the Iraqi reconstruction and military contracts. Are they making money from coffin and flag sales to?
Indeed if not KBR, then who. Was that the slogan during the Vietnam War when LBJ helped to secure them lucrative contracts in exchange for KBR’s financial support in getting him into office? That’s right they were known as Burn and Loot back then.

 

[White knight]

What if the people we elect to represent us feel as if the military plans would do more harm than good?--No checks on the military? Interesting.

That was the lesson we learned from the mistakes of Vietnam, we could have won if it were not for the civilians meddling in the Generals field of expertise.