Damn, Bill Kristol Is Going After Rumsfield Too

[NATO AIR]

I have to say I believe I will be serving under a new defense secretary by June at the rate Rummy is going...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A132-2004Dec14.html?referrer=email&sub=AR

The Defense Secretary We Have

By William Kristol
Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,

in a town hall meeting with soldiers

at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8.

Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

"Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues."

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.

 

[Bonnie]

This is absolutely the worst time to express reservations against Rumsfeld.............Especially with Iraq's election coming up. Whatever politicians think of him, he is a brilliant man who has had many years experience. Im disappointed at Kristol in this. He knows better!

 

[NATO AIR]

This is absolutely the worst time to express reservations against Rumsfeld.............Especially with Iraq's election coming up. Whatever politicians think of him, he is a brilliant man who has had many years experience. Im disappointed at Kristol in this. He knows better!

I think he is brilliant but he is also showing shades of "brilliant incompetence"

we will suceed in iraq regardless of what happens to rumsfield, indeed i have to say our going in iraq has likely been tougher because of him, rather than easier.

the tidal wave of criticism is going to build until after the elections, then it will crash on him and he will not be safe even with their success...

 

[Bonnie]

I think he is brilliant but he is also showing shades of "brilliant incompetence"

we will suceed in iraq regardless of what happens to rumsfield, indeed i have to say our going in iraq has likely been tougher because of him, rather than easier.

the tidal wave of criticism is going to build until after the elections, then it will crash on him and he will not be safe even with their success...

True but we should not undermine the elections in Iraq by not showing confidence in our military leaders right now. Im sure if Rumsfeld really is messing up as some say he is, then after the elections would be a better time to pig pile on him and at least give him a gracious face saving way out. It's my understanding that Bush has asked him sto stay on and he has accepted? Do I have my facts wrong about that??

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm still puzzled. I have listened to and read his statements at the meeting where he was ambushed by a sleazy question which had been formulated by a leftist reporter. His answer was factual and honest. How did it get to be arrogant?

How do you support your statements that Rumsfeld was incompetent or that we would have been better off without him? Are you falling victim to the same second-guessing that has been rampant in the left wing press?

How should we have known before hand that Humvees and trucks would become the favorite target for insurget IEDs? Somehow libs love to take current problems and claim that somehow we should have foreseen them. Fact is, these assholes can't even analyze current problems correctly much less peer into the future.

 

[NATO AIR]

I'm still puzzled. I have listened to and read his statements at the meeting where he was ambushed by a sleazy question which had been formulated by a leftist reporter. His answer was factual and honest. How did it get to be arrogant?

How do you support your statements that Rumsfeld was incompetent or that we would have been better off without him? Are you falling victim to the same second-guessing that has been rampant in the left wing press?

How should we have known before hand that Humvees and trucks would become the favorite target for insurget IEDs? Somehow libs love to take current problems and claim that somehow we should have foreseen them. Fact is, these assholes can't even analyze current problems correctly much less peer into the future.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471
breakaway quote that is relevant to what i am going to argue: (the whole thing is interesting though)

Surgeons also discovered a dismayingly high incidence of blinding injuries. Soldiers had been directed to wear eye protection, but they evidently found the issued goggles too ugly. As some soldiers put it, 'They look like something a Florida senior citizen would wear.' So the military bowed to fashion and switched to cooler-looking Wiley-brand ballistic eyewear. The rate of eye injuries has since decreased markedly.

alright, my main question is this: on armor, IEDS and what not... why the hell has it taken nearly 2 years for them to realize we needed to address this seriously? i could give a grace period of a year or so, but after that, the gloves come off and i'm asking hard questions on the behalf of the soldiers over there who are getting the shaft from the civilians at DOD.

as you'll see from the example above, when leaders are on the ball, things can get revamped and upgraded/innovated very quickly.

several smaller examples: we had a continuing problem during firefighting drills of a device on our firefighting ensemble not working the way it was supposed to because the training folks were recieving was inaccurate, as well as the material the device was designed with being too cumbersome...

short story: within 3 months after our XO forwarded a memo to navsurface warfare center, the device was remade into something lighter and the training revamped...

change can get done quickly, when folks are on the ball and paying attention.

it just seems to me on too many things in iraq rumsfield and those with him have been behind the curve, often behind the military's own observations and experiences there, not what some loudmouth in the media or academia was saying

 

[Bonnie]

Fact is, these assholes can't even analyze current problems correctly much less peer into the future.

Well said..........LOL

 

[nakedemperor]

This is absolutely the worst time to express reservations against Rumsfeld.

Why's that?

 

[Bonnie]

Why's that?

I already explained that those who really think this, should not be saying so until after the Iraqi elections, as it sends a bad message of undermining our confidence in our miltiary leaders. McCain is simply doing it now to keep his face in circulation, he likes to think of himself as a "cuting edge" kind of guy at Rumfeld's expense.

 

[Mariner]

I apologize for revivifying an old thread--but I've been out of town for a week.

Bonnie, I think the best way we can show who we are and what we stand for is by having an open society and an open debate, which even includes critiquing our leaders.

What you're calling for--that everyone steps into line and repeats what the gov't says--isn't democracy, it's fascism. When Iraqis see that we can even question our own leaders, I believe it advertises us very positively.

Things seem to be getting hotter for Rumsfeld daily, with many conservative Republicans expressing ill-confidence. Trent Lott too, which really surprised me.

I'm not sure why you guys think he's so brilliant. What has he done right? Let's see, he misjudged the size of the forces required, misjudged the effectivness of fast-moving battle techniques, misjudged the chance of an insurgency appearing, misjudged the requirements for securing everything for museums to arms against looting, misjudged the requirements of occupation... and made gaffe after gaffe when speaking in public. And the whole while he's resisted his own president's leadership around intelligence reform, because it would have reduced his own dept's power, embarrassing Bush badly a couple of weeks ago.

Remind me again what he's actually done well?

Mariner

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't get this rumsfeld bashing at all. His statement just seems to me to mean that generally there is always room for improvement.

Sometimes i think conservatives get over anxious to prove they're not "partisan".

Look how they split the committe leadership positions in the senate 50/50. That was insane.

 

[NATO AIR]

I'm not sure why you guys think he's so brilliant. What has he done right? and made gaffe after gaffe when speaking in public.
Remind me again what he's actually done well?

Mariner

I have to say that's a very juvenile and poor criticism of the man. Any person in that level of responsibility should be absolved of any sort of requirement to be "well-spoken". hell, bush has made gaffe after gaffe when speaking in public. is he unqualified for office b/c of that? folks make mistakes, they're not all robots like john kerry or the old al gore or sinister power mongers like hiliary clinton.

btw, JFK, Reagan, FDR, all these men made very famous speaking gaffes, are they somehow not qualified to be honored in the way they are today?

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie, I think the best way we can show who we are and what we stand for is by having an open society and an open debate, which even includes critiquing our leaders.

Yes and we have that in spades!!!!!!!

What you're calling for--that everyone steps into line and repeats what the gov't says--isn't democracy, it's fascism.

LOL not advocating facism,only a little commonsense and restraint on firing a man bassed on out of context soundbites.

When Iraqis see that we can even question our own leaders, I believe it advertises us very positively.

No when Iraqis see us wavering in our resolve in the one man that has been orchestrating their regime change and subsequent freedom form a tyrant that should have been gone twelve years ago it takes away their resolve to keep figting the terroeists that are bombing their police buildings, and training facilities.

Things seem to be getting hotter for Rumsfeld daily, with many conservative Republicans expressing ill-confidence. Trent Lott too, which really surprised me.

Im not it's politically expedient to be a piranha in Washington.

Remind me again what he's actually done well?

Here's another take on this;

Don Rumsfeld is one of the most experienced men in Washington. So he is presumably not surprised at the fickleness of the chattering classes. Not so long ago he got nothing but fabulous press and fawning treatment form Congress and the public. Now the "smart people" have formed up for a political lynch-mob demanding his head, with even Republicans insisiting that he lose his job once the votes are counted in Iraq.

Even a veteran of decades of inside-the Beltway and corporate bloddletting like "Rummy" might be amazed by the grounds on whihc he is being pilloried, however.

Take for example the outrage that has accompanied his response in Kuwait to a soldier in the Tennessee National Guard about the lack of adequate armor protection for our troops going into Iraq- a response universally described by media and other Rumsfeld critics as "arrogant." Long-time editor Allan Ryskind recently observed the sound bite in question sounds entirely different in the full context of Secretary's Rumsfeld's respectful and characteristically thoughtful answer.

The first thing the Defense Secretary said was: "I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. In told that they are being-the army is- I think it's something like 400 amonth are being done. And It's essentailly a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on part of the Army desire. It's amtter of production and capability of doing it."

It was only then the Mr Rumsfeld made what was taken by the troops- who subsequently gave him a standing ovation-as an unexceptional observation: "As you know, you who go to war with the army you have. They are not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." "Since the Iraqi conflict began, the army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate they believe- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously- but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment".

Never mind that Secretary Rumsfeld had been given contrary information as recently as when he was enroute to his townhall meeting with the troops. It is a cheap shot to denounce Rummy for answering as he did when, to the best of his knowledge, the army was doing everything humanly possible to mee the current needs. Upon discovering otherwise, full production was ordered.

Given the bipartisan agreement that eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime was justified and necessary, the second President Bush and his Defense Secretary were right, under the circumstances, to work to achieve that objective quickly and decisively, then to drae on allied forces and reconsituted and vetted Iraqi units to help maintain post-war security.
Don Rumsfeld may not be perfect, but neither are his critics. He is notheless arguably the finest Secretaty of Defense this nation has ever had. His combination of vast expertise, unflagging energy and strategic vision would be desirable under any circumstances.

Most of those seeking Mr. Rumsfeld's dismissal hope Geroge Bush will overlook the fact the Secretary is his most faithful and capable cabinet officer in the execution of the President's policies..www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/printfg20041220.shtml

Has Rumsfeld made mistakes of course......hindsigth is always 20/20......Name a leader that hasn't made mistakes?
How about Geroge Washington.........Patton.

Rumsfeld is still very good at his job!

BTB, it was Rumsfeld who when he worked for Nixon
was the most outspoken proponent and the reason we now have an all volunteer army...........Are you sure you libs really want his head on a plate??????