<< ENTERTAINER HAS GEOPOLITICAL OPINION ~ MAIN ~ SENATE GONE >>
RUMMY GONE
Donald Rumsfeld resigns in the wake of poor midterm results for the Republicans.
UPDATE. More on Rumsfeld’s removal from Mark Steyn.
Whilst a lot of the criticism of Rumsfeld is hysterical and ill informed the fact is that he made significant errors in Iraq and should have gone before now.
His honesty in answering press questions was refreshing, such as when during the Afghan campaign he was asked why the USA was using cluster bombs and his answer was “to drop on the enemy and kill them”.
It will almost be amusing to watch Kos and Mickey No-Moore fighting to claim his scalp.
Commiserations to Stateside posters, but as someone observed yesterday, the Democrats now have two years to stuff their chances in ‘08. On form, that has to be a strong probability.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 11 08 at 08:53 PM • permalinkUntil I hear otherwise from someone that was actually in the upper levels of the command chain in the AO of central asia, I’ll keep insisting that the “errors” in Iraq are due to 30 years of obsessively hostile civilian oversight by congress and an irrational media that has caused the US military to fully understand that the civilain community that they stand up to defend is every bit as liable to call for their own soldiers blood if those soldiers were to actually fight a full war.
Rummy did not create a JAG structure that largely mimics the old Soviet Political Officer structure. That was a long time in the making and it is that culture of fear of causing a hostile, enemy supporting, media to turn on them and demand they be paraded in disgrace before swinging on the gallows as the baby raping mass murderers that the “academic elite” MSM and the leftist political wings have so long painted them as.
This is what motivated the creation of a grossly overbearing ROE.
Sorry to see Rummy gone but…
Mistakes and/or miscalculations were and it seems they still are being made in the war effort, both fronts.
Were they of his making? I doubt he was an LBJ, pouring over maps of Vietnam and instructing our proud and brave men and women, where to bomb.
I think…THINK I SAY, that he listened to his Commanders in fields of operation, the military men and women that post here, would know a hell of a lot more then I do, on that subject.
Of course sitting at my desk, it is easy to say…fuck it, erase the Sunni Triangle, or level as much of the mountainous terrain as possible along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Agree with those that have posted. His subtle (yeah right) barbs at press briefings, were a delight.
Thank you for all your years of service, to our country, Secretary Rumsfeld.
All wars have errors, and I think history will judge Rummy very kindly. I dare anyone to name a war where a major country was invaded and a hostile government removed as efficiently and as cheaply as this one.
That’s the problem with Rumsfeld - he gets held to perfect standards, not historical examples. And for that matter, by idiots who scream “quagmire” two weeks into a war.
Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2006 11 08 at 09:04 PM • permalinkRummy did not create a JAG structure that largely mimics the old Soviet Political Officer structure.
Damn, Grimmy, that’s harsh.
Not saying it’s wrong, but, damn, that’s harsh.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 11 08 at 09:06 PM • permalinkAnd for that matter, by idiots who scream “quagmire” two weeks into a war.
And scream defeat when armored forces stop to re-arm and re-fuel during a sand storm.
And who uncritically parrot enemy propaganda.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 11 08 at 09:09 PM • permalinkRight on the button, Grimmy (#4)
I read a biography of General George S. Patton last year, and a similar thought occurred to me then.
If Patton had been hamstrung by a battalion of lawyers like the field commanders in Iraq today, Europe would still be under the Nazi heel.
Damned sorry to see Rummy go. I have always believed him to be a straight shooter.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 11 08 at 09:24 PM • permalinkI’m going to be flamed for this, but, Mr Hackenbacker, Lee Aspin, as I understand, got the boot when he refused armor and gunships for the raid on Habr Gadir (sp?) that resulted in 18 dead US servicemen in Somalia. Rumsfeld, we’re told, was responsible for HMMWVs not having enough armour and for not having enough troops in Iraq, not to mention being blamed for Abu Ghraib. So historically, there was a precedent for him being booted out in 2004.
I won’t miss him, but he did have a way of talking to the media that was…entertaining to say the least.
BTW, check out Blackfive’s tribute to Rummy.
Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 08 at 09:27 PM • permalinkThe gullible have voted.
Rummy would have spent the next year answering questions from the Dems while the Pentagon was left to run itself. What was the point in him staying?
Both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi remind me of Madame Defarge, Madame Therese Defarge is the wife of Ernest Defarge and a tireless worker for the French Revolution in the book A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. In France there was The Reign of Terror and Madame Guillotine. Will USA now face a Reign of Terror as the two madames seek to overthrow the President?Posted by stackja1945 on 2006 11 08 at 09:32 PM • permalinkI agree with Grimmy, and await the judgement of history.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say that Rumsfeld’s oft quoted
“...there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
is actually a statement that only those ignorant of the Delphic principle “Know Thyself”, and its enlargement and expansion as the basis, the very foundation of modern thought—initially through the works of Socrates, Aristotle, Heraclitus and, yes, Plato (particularly in his Theaetetus)—would ridicule.Cumbersome? Perhaps. Illogical? Not in the least.
When I first heard him say that, my admiration for him increased—while ignorant baboons on both the left and right were laughing.
Idiots.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 08 at 09:32 PM • permalink#13, Matthew:
The armored HMMV issue was because HMMV were not designed to be armored cars. They are light utility vehicles that got pressed into service as armored cars after the fact.
There were a few HMMV that were made up as “light armored scout” vehicles to serve as a stop gap between main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, but the design pupose of the HMMV was to serve as a light transport/cargo utility vehicle.
The sitation changed and the gear changed with it. Those that squawl about it not being done fast enough or shoulda been done ahead of the need tend to be the sort that believe complex problems can be saved by waving magic wands at them.
Matthew Lawrence-there is absolutely no reason that we purchase any military vehicles that do not come equipped with balistic glass and at least enough up-armoring to make them resistant to small arms fire.
Rummy wasn’t directly responsible for that-a mindless bureaucratic culture that still relies on “doctrine” to decide what vehicles “go into combat” is, but it did not seem to be much of a priority to him. As I said elsewhere, he was doing the right thing with transformation, but he also often left me scratching my head on a host of other issues.
#18, Amen, brother! Rice is out of her depth.
People saw the cup 10% empty with Rummy. We will soon see if Gates can improve on 90% full.
Politically, a prudent move to remove Rummy. Militarily, that’s a different story.
I suspect there are happy faces in Gaza, Tehran, Damascus, Pyongyang, and the caves of Waziristan. And probably in Brussels too.
Posted by neoZionoid on 2006 11 08 at 09:51 PM • permalinkIn retrospect: the best reason for voting Republican would have been today’s interminable MMM gloating. Please MAKE IT STOP!!!
Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 11 08 at 09:52 PM • permalinkI reckon Condi was told to adopt some sort of “kinder, gentler” claptrap.
Left to herself, I think she might have handled things differently.
Hell, she scares me...imagine what the enemy sees in that unblinking, “I’ll eat you alive and spit out your bones”, unwavering stare of hers?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 08 at 09:52 PM • permalink#18 Dan. Such is my respect for you that I very much look forward to a more detailed exposition on Rice’s performance.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 08 at 09:56 PM • permalink#17, 91B30:
I know it might seem like I’m getting on you lately and, I guess I am, sorta.
But, just as a reality check I offer this.
I was in the service as an infantryman in the USMC when the HMMV was first starting to phase in. It was designed as a light utility vehicle and, much like the jeep of old, could serve duel purpose as a gun jeep but was never intended to be armored enough to withstand more than small arms fire.
Up armoring the HMMV has caused other problems as well, such as loss of mobility/maneuverability and constant breakdowns of an overloaded suspension/drive train.
A military has no more than it’s those who control the purse strings are willing to pay out. And not every potential possibility can be planned for, let alone foreseen.
To put this into some context, when the HMG platoon I was assigned to was instructed to mount guns to the jeeps in order to create mobile .50 platforms, we had to remove the windshields from those jeeps and strap the tripods to the hoods of the jeeps. The floorboards were too old and worn to take the stress of gun pedestals.
When we were then tasked with providing gun jeep patrols along an area, we had to make due at night with attaching the starlight scopes to the guns on the hoods of our jeeps and the gunner, sitting on the passenger side of the vehicle would keep his eyeball pressed in on the sight so that we could execute proper light discipline driving at night. There were no night vision goggles for our drivers.
When Marines went ashore on Guadalcanal in the beginning of our fight in WW2, many of them were issued WW1 era bolt action rifles.
NO army of any size can keep everything it might need in order to fight a war at full modern, pristine upgraded levels. The cost would preclude keeping an armed force of sufficient size to be of any use.
It has always been so, it will always be so. That’s just life.
The propaganda of those that work to erode our will to fight also work to erode our confidence in our command. We must all watch ourselves for slippage. It is insidious and corrosive and if left unchecked will lead to mutiny, and defeat.
MentalFloss, I feel that Condi, like so manyu secretaries of state, is being absorbed by the Borg of Foggy Bottom.
Let’s see, Cheney resign and Condi made VeeP ready for 2008.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 08 at 10:05 PM • permalinkAbsorbed? Borg? I don’t know what sci fi show you’ve been watching…
Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 08 at 10:06 PM • permalinkIf nothing else, this election is prompting some very interesting re-assessment by those of us here of the “supporting cast” of individuals whose virtues and vices were largely ignored prior.
More please.
(oh, and Wimpy, I stopped watching Star Trek a while back—translation please?)
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 08 at 10:14 PM • permalinkThere was a steady drizzle outside, and drops of water made their halting way down the window, like spermatozoa looking for the prize in life’s most interesting zero sum game, when Sheila walked into the office. She was wearing an expression of mystery as she stopped in front of my desk.
“You’ve got a client outside, wants to see you something awful.”
“Who is it?”
“Michael Moore.”
I was intrigued. Why would Jabba the Hut’s ugly brother come to see me?
“Send him in.”
“He can’t come in. He’s stuck in the elevator.”
“Which floor?”
Sheila gave me that sly, sidewise smile; it was the face that launched a thousand furtive Binaca blasts by an equal number of would-be suitors. “All of them.”
“Listen, baby, I’m going to wind up using more than my allotted comment characters if this keeps up much longer. Spill.”
“He wedged himself in the elevator so tightly he can’t get out, and his blubber is pushing against all the buttons, so he just keeps going up and down, up and down.”
I lit a coffin nail and walked with Sheila out to the lobby. At that moment, the elevator door opened. A whiny voice filled the air.
“Oh, so there you are, Detective Paco! Listen, I’ve got a case for you. According to my calculations . . .”
Shhhhoooop!.
The doors closed and Moore was gone, like a fat memo down a vacuum tube.
“How long has this been going on?”
“About 10 minutes. Took him a long time to say what was on his mind.”
A few minutes later he was back. “According to my calculations, the Democrats received 100% of the vote, yet Republicans ‘won’ some of the elections. This proves . . .”
Shhhoooop!
Moore had begun his downward journey again.
Sheila cocked an inquisitive eyebrow. “So what do we do? Call the fire department, or just stand here and poke him with sticks whenever the door opens?” That’s my girl: always considering the options.
I was working on my second cigarette when Moore made his regularly-scheduled appearance.
“Can’t you get me out of here? It’s hot and I’m getting hungry.”
“What do I look like, a piano mover? I’ll call the fire department.”
I went back to the office, picked up the phone - and heard what sounded like a distant car crash.
A few minutes later, Sam the janitor came running in.
“Mr. Paco! I just saw Michael Moore climbing out of the elevator in the basement!”
“What’s so remarkable about that, Sam?”
“Why, the elevator doesn’t go to the basement!”
Sheila came in laughing. “It’s my fault. He was hungry and I gave him half my ham sandwich. I guess that made him equal to just over the ten-person maximum that Otis allows.”
Who’s to blame? I say Turkey.
No, seriously.
The original battle plan for 2003 had 3ID staging from Turkey into the north of Iraq. They inevitably would have had to cut a swathe through the Sunni Triangle, no doubt with so friendly partisan activity on the part of Kurdish irregulars.
But Turkey said no.
So the powerbase of Saddam was unscathed by the war. We didn’t bomb the shit out of them, we didn’t flatten their towns, we didn’t kill 90% of the Saddamites who would have tried to stop the 3ID. Now there was certainly an argument for having 3ID do a broad sweep around the West of Baghdad and try to fight in the Trianglewith dodgy supply lines, but it would have been risky. And Baghdad fell too quickly - if such a thing is possible.
These people did not FEEL defeated - they felt cheated. The surrender (or more correctly a short term armistace) came before they even got to fight.
And while a defeated people will acquiesce (think Atlanta or Berlin ‘45) a cheated people will only seek revenge.
Rummy was dealt a terrible hand. we ‘took the hill’ but did not ‘kill the enemy’ and reduce his will to fight.
And the problems in Iraq are all Turkey’s fault.
Posted by Apparatchik on 2006 11 08 at 10:18 PM • permalinkYou need a literary agent, paco. Preferably one who can maintain some semblance of composure upon reading your material.
You’re wasted in the Public Sector.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 08 at 10:18 PM • permalinkOh, that’s nothing compared to IMAO’s In My World or whatever its called. However, maybe a collaboration? Oh, that’s an idea Paco, you can resume their podcast.
Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 08 at 10:20 PM • permalink#32 lingus4
What happened to the old USA who could arm the West and fight concurrently on two fronts?
What Bush 41 and his “friends” in the then-Democrat-controlled Congress called the “peace dividend” and Billy Jeff’s “balanced budgets”.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 11 08 at 10:20 PM • permalinkApparatchik, a concise assessment of one of the major factors contributing to the current problems faced by our military.
Arm the Kurds.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 11 08 at 10:22 PM • permalink``And the problems in Iraq are all Turkey’s fault.’‘
With a little help from the French, who basically blackmailed the Turks into refusing us passage, as in ``Let the Americans through and you will NEVER get into the EU’’ (which of course Turkey desperately wants to do.) So Turkey bows to pressure, and when the next vote comes up…France blackballs them anyway.
Never mind the Saudis for now; we should probably deal with the French first.
Posted by Sonetka's Mom on 2006 11 08 at 10:28 PM • permalinkAnd while a defeated people will acquiesce (think Atlanta or Berlin ‘45) a cheated people will only seek revenge.
True. Maybe we’re making wars longer and vicious by making them more humane and precise. It’s not enough to defeat an enemy on the battlefield, you have to exhaust their will.
Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2006 11 08 at 10:31 PM • permalinkGrimmy-the problem is that we have known since at least Somalia that “non-combat vehicles” are going to get pushed into combat situations. That’s not even a failure of imagination-it’s a failure to apply lessons learned. Why do we buy any military vehicle that isn’t “intended to go into combat”-especially for the Army and Marine Corps?
It isn’t going to add appreciably to the cost of the vehicle to add ballistic glass and steel doors and it is better to do so in the manufacturing process so that engineers can make changes rather than have it done by mechanics doing ad hoc jobs in the field-that is what is causing some of the problems you refer to when you talk about suspension issues and the drive train.
My ambulances in the desert had to run missions with the 1114s. Only we were already heavier than other hummers and we did not have the high powered engines that the 1114s had (and they ran wide open to stymie IED attacks), so as you might imagine we had them in the shop constantly. Also it ruined the shocks, so if we had an injured GI in the back, he usually had a rough ride. We only had three in the squadron and if one was down it limited our ability to run missions. The up-armoring kits were not intended for the M997 (the 4 litter ambulance) so they could basically put steel doors and ballistic glass on the frame, but not much else. Anyone riding in the back-including patients-was basically unprotected.
It was my regiment that Rummy made his “you go to war with the Army you’ve got” remark to. When we were mobilized we were issued a lot of brand new LMTVs, right off the assembly line-all soft skinned. Now, I can accept that maybe we did not want to up-armor them before shipping so as not to add to the weight. But when we got to the desert there was apparently a shop at the shipyard that did up-armoring, but our vehicles were not sent to that shop. Instead our mechanics worked hard to “hillbilly” armor our trucks so we could go north. We had our vehicles in theater for three weeks before going north, so there was time to do the work and we trained in Mississippi for four months before deploying so they knew we were coming.
These are the kinds of things that we talk about at drill-in fact we had driver training on the LMTV this past weekend and talked about this very issue.
GIs bitch-I’ll bet those Marines on Guadacanal were pissed as hell with the 1903s they had and griped about it-it’s a soldier’s right. Good NCOs and commanders listen to that and decide what gripes are legitimate and which are bogus. Based on that changes are sometimes recommended. I think most of us here can see reason and know what is crap or not. If they think there is any merit to what I say, maybe they’ll bring it up with their congresscritter (and I want to see the Dems explain why they won’t vote to approve the money for more up-armoring after raking Rummy over the coals for it).
Actually, the gyrenes with the Springfields felt they were better off than the Marines armed with the brand-new but unreliable Johnson semiautomatic rifles and the truly wretched Reising submachine gun.
Of course, most of them happily stole Garands and Thompsons from the GI units that reinforced them, although a few old leathernecks actually preferred the ‘03’s…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 08 at 10:38 PM • permalinkIIRC our guys used HMMVs in Kosovo, part of the former Yugoslavia, the same Yugoslavia that manufactured the land mines for the entire Warsaw Pact. This during the Billy Jeff and Hil show. Guys were putting sandbags in the floors of the vehicles to protect from mines. I do not recall one word of criticism from the Drive-by-media for Billy Jeff’s SECDEF about those unarmored HMMVs or the necessity of our guys to innovate, adapt and overcome to accomplish that mission. Much like the “homeless”, dead GI’s only matter when a Republican is the President.
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 11 08 at 10:40 PM • permalinkWell, put me down as believing Rummy did not make mistakes in Iraq. What he did was choose the best course of action that got the most benefits now, the best chance of a democratic Iraq later, at the least cost of lives and treasure. He was charting a course between the jagged reef and the raging whirlpool. All his critics did was point out the negative consequences that come from doing anything difficult.
What’s happening in Iraq is as good as we can obtain and is very necessary. It will pay off with a much safer world if we stay the course.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 11 08 at 10:40 PM • permalinklingus4
What happened to the old USA who could arm the West and fight concurrently on two fronts?
We are still here, as you know we could obliterate a goodly part of this globe and that’s with our Trident’s, alone.
We are still here, for those that want to be armed and to those who need aid, for disasters.
We are still here, despite our disloyal Left and will still be here, regardless.
Grimmy,
Your explanation rings true: it’s not Rummy the problem so much as civilian (political) oversight. Since WWII we fight and lose politically correct wars run by…politicians, and I believe civilian oversight was only added after WWII. Coincidence?Machiavelli offers another way of saying what Mr. Hackenbaker says—give people the bad news all at once and the good news bit by bit. These long police actions do the reverse and are doomed.
IMO Mr. Baker was forced onto Bush months ago by a party that feared they were going down and Bush only agreed to do the deed if the party lost. If he had replaced Rumsefeld a year ago, the Reps could have saved some close races.
Baker is another grand old man/fixer of the party, and his mission will be to carry out the edicts of his Iraq Study Group, which I fear will amount to a Vietnam style peace with honor.
The armored HMMV issue was because HMMV were not designed to be armored cars. They are light utility vehicles that got pressed into service as armored cars after the fact.
A lot has been said about the “Hummer”, and I agree with it. But I want to emphasize that the need for light armored vehicles was recognized before Desert Storm…..and nothing ever happened.
In a nutshell, my experience in active, Guard, and Reserve units told me that no one took the threat of guerilla warfare seriously. No one of any consequence, anyhoo.
[sarcasm]
Besides, the military needs new tanks, aircraft, computers, and artillery pieces. Why armor rear area troops? They won’t be fighting in the front! They can protect themselves with their weapons, and call for support.
[/sarcasm]
I heard that more than once, although less facetiously. But without the concern for such a threat, there was no “champion” for light armored vehicles, even though every other major military force in the world has them.
So there was no push for armored HUMMVWs, or some other design…..until IEDs came into significant play.
FWIW, when the push finally came, uparmoring HUMMVWs was serious and intense. There is a major industrial facility in Kuwait that does nothing but that. The bottleneck came from the lack of industrial base…..the uparmor kits just couldn’t be produced fast enough. And we are buying off-shelf-designs as well.
As for Rummy leaving…...he made some mistakes, but I don’t see him as the evil demon that everyone does. The simple fact that he pissed off so many people on both sides of the aisle tells me that he did his job. I will miss him, and I think that history will judge him well.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 08 at 11:12 PM • permalinkWronwright - could not agree more. I’d give Rumsfeld a job tomorrow. I found the transcripts of his interviews with Woodward very interesting. Woodwards wife says if he had been CIA director he would have spotted the weakness to the WMD case. Rumsfeld saw Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech on the carrier and pulled the line as he knew there was more fighting to be done, unfortunately he didn’t know about the banner. All the 4 star’s are saying the claims of being forced to take less troops is bullsh…t
Name a SECDEF who over an extended period didn’t make some mistakes? He was tough and sharp and if Bush made a mistake with him it was not to let him off the leash. I would have had him out there doing one-on-one interviews incessantly knocking down the brainless twaddle been spread. One on One interviews largely removes the ability of the leftie journo’s to cherry pick and distort.Issues like de-baathifaction I think are more like to fall at Bremer’s feet.
He served his country and the Free World well.
Posted by the nailgun on 2006 11 08 at 11:25 PM • permalinkJeff, unless Battlefield 2 and Wikipedia have been lying to me, the Marines do have a light armoured vehicle called, funnily enough, the LAV, and the Army has the Stryker.
Coincidentally, according to Wikipedia, General Shinseki was partly responsible for the Stryker.
Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 08 at 11:29 PM • permalinkRumsfeld (and Bush) didn’t pull their decisions out of their butts. They operated with an army of advisers and information mavens, and they made the best decisions they could with what they had. History will judge, and what looks like mistakes now may well be considered brilliant strategy in the future. Those of you who will still be alive when history gets around to it should just learn patience.
Paco, you can waste as much Public Sector as you like. In fact, I hope you will. I love a good laugh before I hit the hay.
If we get in the habit of demanding that our military begin advanced equiping our units based upon single battlefield condition issues, we can kiss good bye to our inherent ability to rapidly adjust to events and changes.
And yes, the changes in armoring the jeeps was quick on any scale that that applies to reality.
Soldiering is a dangerous endevor. The concept of light, unarmored gun jeeps and untility vehicles stood the test on more than a few battlefields of our past.
If y’all wanna take bets, I’ve a few extra bucks that says most of the usual suspects that started the rant-o-chant about the jeeps not being armored, will be the same ones that start the rant-o-chant that armored jeeps are getting Soldiers killed, injured or harmed/hampered when things shift to a fast move oriented battlefied, due to their lack of manuverability, constantly bogging down in terrain or mechanical unreliability due to the gross overweight of the armor.
I do not mean that as targeted to anyone here, but at the politicos and MSMers that start such memes.
#16- Grimmy - right on the money. No one envisioned the need for all HMMV’s to be armored - they were the replacement for the jeep for f sakes. Same with body armor. Both were complex supply chain issues that arose when new situations presented themselves, and were solved damn quick. Rummy’s comments to the stooge stood up by a “journalist” in Kuwait was right on - you go to the war with the Army you have and adjust from there.
I have not seen anyone credible that was in the chain of commands that said he did not listen to the military about manpower, etc. Those who have never led a masssive effort - umm, journalists & professors come to mind- are the first to stand on the sidelines and shoot scuds at those who do.
Mistake:“a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention.”
Let’s break that down: “Wrong action” in math, 2+2=4 and if you say any other number it is wrong. In war a wrong action is one that gets you killed or wounded or gives that ground to the other side. Do any of Rumsfeld’s actions fit this description? He could have had more troops on the ground but was the lack due to ignorance of inaction? In my opinion there is a good case for having more troops but was there knowledge of this at the time? I heard the general in charge many times say he had enough troops and surely that would be the ultimate source of information to the Secretary of Defense.
This is my first comment posted to this blog after years of reading.
Rummy was the best man for the job. Getting rid of him was a sign of weakness and/or failure…wtf is wrong with Bush? Or, what is the real story behind this?
And for those of you who think “he messed up the war”,you believe a war should go by the numbers; without flaw and should be as predictable as a 2 hour movie…you are no better than the sheep that vote for the Extreme Left Democrats and buy into all the crap that has been slung at us by the MSM for the past 4 years.
What a sad day.
Lets not forget the logistics involved in putting more “boots on the ground”.
I dont know the current rule but the old rule of thumb was, for each warfighter you add 10 to the supply chain.
So, for 100k new boots on the ground, if the old math is still appropriate, that’d be 1 mil personnel added to the chain in total.
Which front would you want to strip to come up with that? Those forces helping to hold NorKor in check, perhaps?
How about the guard and reserve? How about calling up IRR?
Even if the new number is 1 to 5, 500k is still a bunch of new boots to pull up out of the already rotating units.
Maybe we could redesignate artillery and MP units as grunts and put them out on the streets to make up the numbers?
Now, before committing to all that, how about pulling whatever magic wand it is that gives such sure knowledge that the extra boots would do anything but get under foot and let us all have a turn waving it around?
Good riddance. He made too many mistakes and appeared to relish his role in provoking potential allies.
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 08 at 11:47 PM • permalink#51: I defer to 91B30 on some of the strategic and tactical issues, but I basically agree with nailgun. I like Rummy. And whether or not it was the right decision to let him go, I think the timing was deplorable: one day after the election went against the Republicans. It looks too much like baksheesh paid to Nance Pelosi.
RebeccaH and MentalFloss: Nothing provides me with more pleasure than to give you a chuckle. The Paco clan is a veritable race of clowns, and I am glad to be living up to the family tradition.
Hmmm, well for my 20 cents worth, i think Rumsfeld deserved to go…. Yes he probably did some good things and kicked a few slow moving ponderous military types into the real world, but I think he could probably be a bit of a control freak, I think he determined very early on (like Cheney before him) to smack a few 4-stars round the head and show them who was now the boss in the Pentagon…
After that he would have gotten a lot of what he wanted, and plenty would have been scared of him. If you demand to be the big boss and call all the shots and then the @ss drops out of the situation, have a guess who gets to wear the lion’s share of the blame…
I think the pounding he did on Shinseki and Army Secretary White before Iraq was a bit uncalled for, they wanted more troops, they were pro’s and they got slapped down and then shafted… While I understand the reasons why fewer troops were used, it turns out a few more troops to establish a bit of control might have been just the ticket, even if only initially for a short period…
I know Frontline might be a bit of a public broadcasting/leftie leaning sort of doco, but when i watched a few episodes such as Rumsfeld’s War and a recent one on the wasted first year in Iraq, with interviews of some of the top people in their own words, I have to say I would have felt like kicking a few butts royally in the upper echelons of the Bush team…
It certainly seems like a lot of stuff ups and amatuerish stuff occurred, and it seems like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bremer were some of the main people calling the shots…
I think eventually a bit of responsibility for actions and results needs to be slated home, those guys got a lot of what they wanted by influencing Bush, Condi seemed to be asleep at the wheel for the first few years, and I think a lot of it has turn @ss-end-up…
Jeff, unless Battlefield 2 and Wikipedia have been lying to me, the Marines do have a light armoured vehicle called, funnily enough, the LAV, and the Army has the Stryker.
Correct, the Marines have the LAV, but only in limited quantities. The Stryker is in extensive use in Iraq, although it wasn’t deployed until around mid-2003 (as I recall).
But we are discussing HUMMVWs here; I should have specified “armored cars” in my statement. The primary difference is that an “armored car” is not an attack vehicle; it should be agile and lightly armed. An LAV is lighter than a tank or APC, but heavier than an armored car, and has more troop space and weapons.
There are two reasons not to use an LAV, one being cost, and the other being mobility.
Cost is a… muddled ....term, when it comes to saving lives. But not everyone will get the latest and greatest equipment. Sometimes you opt for a middle ground, and people get less than they want, but (hopefully) enough for their needs. It sucks, but that’s what happens. And sometimes you don’t need an armored fighting vehicle (which is what the LAV and Stryker), but just enough to get through the danger zone….if the threat is relatively low, and you can move fast.
Mobilitiy….LAVs are large, and there are some places where they are difficult to manuever. A smaller vehicle is actually better suited in those conditions. We use armored cars in Iraq and Aghanistan for rapidly moving small groups of people (happens all the time), and for some recon missions. It frees up the armored vehicles for other missions.
So armored HUMMVWs are a compromise between a full fledged LAV-type vehicle and a soft-skinned vehicle.
Hope this clears up any misunderstanding, Matt.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 08 at 11:49 PM • permalink#62, TRJ:
And LAV and Stryker can still be killed too, as I’m sure you know.
If we were to suddenly equip all our troops with full LAV/Stryker complements and even if the terrain/mobility wasnt an issue, the enemy would quickly adjust to bigger IED, more IED chains and RPG barrage ambushes.
We could even put everyone in an M1 Abrams and pop an IED made from a few artillery shells tied together and the shockwave has every potential to kill the crew anyway, even without penetrating the armor.
There’s never an easy answer. Life is hard. Sometimes we just have to get harder.
57 kcbiskit
This is my first comment posted to this blog after years of reading.
Welcome, aboard…think I spelled that correctly. Usually have trouble with things between dyslexia, a martini or two and a beer or two. Post regularly.
As to this “he messed up the war”...I don’t really know if “HE messed up the war”, but there were mistakes and/or miscalculations made. NO, one cannot plan a perfect war and the civility of all the forces over there, (both places) make my plan of erasures and obliterations, null.
Wow that was quick, 2 minutes after I posted.
Thanks Grimmy, but I was sort of looking forward to Paco’s explanation
Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 11 09 at 12:16 AM • permalinkI really don’t want to get into a huge argument and I am not taking any of the give and take on this personally, but I would be remiss if I didn’t add at least this before going to bed:
Yes, the enemy adapts (the use of pressure activated IEDs is in response to some of the countermeasures we are using, which is one reason why it is more common for three or four GIs to be killed in an IED attack now than one or two-the IED is set to go off under the vehicle, not beside it) but we ought to do everything we can to make their job more difficult, it was in response to similar problems that led the South Africans to develop vehicles with a v-shaped bottom to deflect explosions away from the crew and increase survivability and we use some vehicles like that in Iraq.
We probably can’t design a vehicle that will counter any potential attack, but all I’m asking for is a little extra steel and ballistic glass to deal with shrapnel and small arms fire-frankly it seems to me that that should be a minimum on any vehicle the Army or Marine Corps buys. Rummy understood the need to transform the Army in response to the changes that technology is bringing, and that also involves procurement issues. I just wish he had shown some of that foresight on this issue.
Good night everybody.
I would just like tomake a couple of points about Condi.
First, part of her job was to reign in the second front over at “State” that seemed to be in open warfare with the President. Could be wrong, but it seems to me (IMHO) that a great deal of that activity has stopped over the last few months.
Second, and almost under the readar, has been the NK’s willingness to return to the 6 party talks. That would seem to be (IMHO a total capitulation on their part. Someone had to do that. You can probably give the President kudos on that one for standing tough and not backing down in the face of pressure. Someone had to negotiate that US policy position.
#57
>> Rummy was the best man for the job.
>> Getting
>> rid of him was a sign of weakness and/or
>> failure…wtf is wrong with Bush? Or, what
>> is the real story behind this?This was an ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, under-resourced war which had no contingencies, no militarily-achievable objectives, no understanding of the historical realities of the region, no awareness of the tribal nature of the several ethnic and religious groups in the country, no exit strategie*s*, no truly international support, no serious domestic support from informed, educated people who could actually point to Iraq on a map and who knew very well that whatever else Saddam was, he was not responsible for 11 September…
At last the United States has woken up. They were sold a dummy. By a dummy. Working for a dummy president. And they know it. And they’ve told the world, and the country, and the neo-cons, and the bloggers, and FOX news, and Rupert, and the whole goddamn shooting match.
Rumsfield failed. Bush failed. Your advocacy failed.
That’s the real story behind this.
#57
>> Rummy was the best man for the job.
>> Getting
>> rid of him was a sign of weakness and/or
>> failure…wtf is wrong with Bush? Or, what
>> is the real story behind this?This was an ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, under-resourced war which had no contingencies, no militarily-achievable objectives, no understanding of the historical realities of the region, no awareness of the tribal nature of the several ethnic and religious groups in the country, no exit strategie*s*, no truly international support, no serious domestic support from informed, educated people who could actually point to Iraq on a map and who knew very well that whatever else Saddam was, he was not responsible for 11 September…
At last the United States has woken up. They were sold a dummy. By a dummy. Working for a dummy president. And they know it. And they’ve told the world, and the country, and the neo-cons, and the bloggers, and FOX news, and Rupert, and the whole goddamn shooting match.
Rumsfeld* failed. Bush failed. Your advocacy failed.
That’s the real story behind this.
* thanks for El Cid for spelling correction, fair comment mate ;-)
From this distance it seems that there was less than full support from the Republican side for the ongoing war, let alone from the Dems.
“If it were done, when ‘tis done, then ‘twer well it were done quickly.”
Syria was not sufficiently bluffed into a corner (Mr Powell’s job?), interference came across borders from everywhere. The Iranian stooge’s militia were given too much room to move, and he still lives. Fallujah - took two goes! - and other hot spots should have been cleaned out with appropriate violence, and quickly.
Now everyone’s carrying on about the death penalty for Saddam! Being politically correct in the western sense does not cut much ice in the ME. Being tough does. I still hear commentators saying things like “we needed to maintain the respect of the muslim world.” In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of them seem to admire absolute bastards. And respect for other religions is low priority, let alone secular societies with too free and easy a set of behavioural standards.
Respect? Good luck with that.podcast from The Glenn and Helen Show featuring Jim Dunnigan, publisher of StrategyPage.com and author of numerous books on war, intelligence and security, and Austin Bay, who blogs at AustinBay.net, and who is the author of both novels and nonfiction works on war and military matters.
They openly discuss the Rumsfeld issue and other current war related issues. Very enlightening.
click on the little speaker on the grey bar that runs accross the page about middle mass.
Much of the oposition to Rummy from retired generals and the like seems to be analogous to thsoe cavalry officers complaining about those horrible, oil-dripping tanks scaring their horses before WWII. Rummy’s transformation was pulling the armed forces into a Post-Cold War world, the world they would have to opreate in. Up to then there was too much prepartaion for fighting the Russians on the North German Plain still going on.
Markxr doesn’t know what he’s taliking about, but I am in no mood to enlighten him now, assuming he is capable of understanding strategy.
If the Dems succeed in arranging an American defeat in Iraq there will be hell to pay, and lots of dead Iraqis as a result. The next time we have to fight the jihadis might be nuclear. The Dems are not likely to leave us much else in the way of capability, and their cut and run from Iraq does not promise to do anything about Iran. The world is more dangerous today than yesterday, and not just for Americans.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 11 09 at 02:02 AM • permalinkI just wish he had shown some of that foresight on this issue.
No argument, 91B30. None at all.
But I wish the military chain of command, who knew about this problem for a long time, had put the same amount of effort into adding some ballistic protection on hummers as they did in spinning up their pet projects.
Between them and Rumsfeld, the problem could have been fixed before the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 09 at 02:24 AM • permalinkSorry, hit SUBMIT too fast….it’s late….
But they didn’t deal with before, so we get to deal with it now, and move on.
That’s not much comfort to the dead and wounded, I know. But it’s just the way things turned out to be. Wishing does nothing but waste pixels.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 09 at 02:26 AM • permalink#31 paco - one of your best ever, thanks.
# 60 paco (again). When you have to eat a shit sandwich, you might as well gobble it down as fast as possible.#74 & 78 markxr So many sweeping generalities, so little space!
But the real thinking is perhaps revealed by this:
“no serious domestic support from informed, educated people who could actually point to Iraq on a map”Ah, yes, the good ‘ol lefty fallback: “Everyone who doesn’t agree with us is stupid”. But I’m really disappointed you didn’t manage to weave the lefty’s standard “you are all rednecks” into the argument, or even “its all the jooooooos fault”.
2/10 only marky; must try harder.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 11 09 at 02:43 AM • permalink#85, deanosumo:
A basic misconception there guy. The SECDEF dosent take anyone to war anywhere. Nor does a SECDEF do the tactical, or except in the loosest and broadest sense, even strategic shot calling.
The SECDEF is the manager of the business end of our military. His job is to make sure the weapons are being built that the military is expected to need in the future.
SECDEF is also tied to at least a 5 year budget plan and often has to predict 10 years ahead what the demands will be.
The SECDEF is the one that gets to go to congress and sit in endless committee meetings explaining why the military will need what it will need for the next generation of warfighters.
Our Generals take our military into fights on the orders of the POTUS. Issues such as ROE and levels of appropriate aggression during a shooting war are also worked out over long periods of development that involve the congress as much as anyone else, once all is said and done.
It’s also rarely, if ever, the same congress that made the rules and demands that cause a set of standard SOP ROE to be created that has to deal with the effects of that ROE once the shooting starts.I doubt any country has ever gone to war with the “right” tactics, doctine and equipment. As they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy.
The crucial thing to have is the flexibility to adapt faster than your enemy to the battlefield. That means having a good R&D infrastructure at home, plus industry that can adapt to churn out the new goodies in volume. Ordering stuff for the US military is not like buying some stuff for a sausage sizzle for your local school fete.
You also need people within the military that can rethink what they are doing in order to develop new tactics and doctrine.
I don’t believe that Rumsfeld can be accused of failing to be flexible, or failing to think, or failing to force others to think.
Has the military learnt and adapted during their time in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the answer is yes, then Rumsfeld did a good job. It is not his job to do all the thinking - it is his job to get other people to do the thinking.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 11 09 at 03:25 AM • permalinkA fair lot of what got “the Generals” pissing and moaning about Rummy was when he killed the crusader artillery system.
That particular piece of gear was totally useless for the “next gen” considerations necessary for the massive transformation process that was starting off at the time.
This is what replaced it.
Behold!! Excalibur! The GPS guided artillery shell!
The gruinard produces a headline up to the standard expected.
“Donald Rumsfeld step downs”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6201022,00.html
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 11 09 at 03:53 AM • permalinkThe Australian Army didn’t go down the path of armouring their Landrovers . . . . they developed the Bushmaster instead.
V-shaped bottom, water tank located under the floor as additional protection, spall lining and so on. It’s not an armoured fighting vehicle, but it will protect its occupants more effectively than an armoured Landrover.
And the driver sits in a Recaro rally seat.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 11 09 at 05:59 AM • permalinkYou can’t take the world’s premier armed forces into a country and get made to look like a fool by a motley collection of rabid maniacs, and expect to keep your job.
Also Rumsfeld should have gone after Bin Laden more aggressively, and commited more troops to Afghanistan.
Is this commenter a classic example of an “armchair general” or what?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 11 09 at 07:17 AM • permalinkOn a parallel theme, why is that our guy just keeps getting better and better?
Rummy’s dismissal is “gesture politics” and a lot of fiscal conservatives were disappointed with his close friend Geroge Bush.
Is there anyone in American politcs as honest and as downright bloody sensible as John Howard?
TFK
When I was just a spotty lad many years ago, and driving trucks in the Army Reserve, the greatest threat to the soft skinned vehicles on the lines of communications seemed to be air attack. Hence all the trucks had a cupola, or circular sun roof, over the passenger seat and the co-driver stood up, stuck his head out and acted as an air guard.
There was always a threat of ambush, and we trained for it, but the training was always directed at an enemy that stood and fought and didn’t use things like IED’s. Blowing bombs up by remote control by mobile phone was a bit difficult, seeing that mobile phones didn’t really exist back then….
I guess the thinking went that there was no point in putting armour on trucks and light vehicles like the Land Rover as they would never go near the front line in daylight, and there is no point in trying to uparmour a vehicle to resist air attack. Even tanks are not immune to air attack (see Warthog).
When a company leases or buys a car, it generally keeps it for only 3 years. When the Army buys a vehicle, it keeps it for a generation. I was driving Land Rovers and ACCO’s in the late 1980’s that were built before I was born. Those vehicles saw service in Vietnam in the 1960’s. When you are dealing in timeframes like that, you don’t just scrap and replace your whole fleet overnight because of the demands of one theatre.
The next war might be fought against someone with an air force and who fights conventionally, so there is no point in completely restructuring the Army to fight the current war. Otherwise, we’ll fight the next war with the wrong equipment.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 11 09 at 08:14 AM • permalinkIs this commenter a classic example of an “armchair general” or what?
An almost perfect example of one. Going after bin Laden “more aggressively” would have meant open war with Pakistan—not just an occasional attack on the tribal areas, but with the entire nation.
And the whole “more troops in Afghanistan” crap has been shot down so many times it’s not funny. Logistics, people! How would you feed and arm those troops in a land-locked country?!
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 11 09 at 08:34 AM • permalinkIn all seriousness Rummy will be spending the next 2 or so years attending 500+ hearings organised by the Demo’s.
Hes probably done the only thing he can do to allow the position of sec def to be run properly.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 11 09 at 08:53 AM • permalinkSo spiffing job by Rumsfeld then, Andrea and Rob?
On his orders the US tried to fight the Afghanistan campaign by proxy because of the ‘Mogadishu standard’... ironic considering how many have died in Iraq.
Committing about 10 000 troops only in Afghanistan has also let the Taliban get a foothold again. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing properly.Of course that pales next to the mess that is Iraq.
Grimmy, good post, yes the SECDEF isn’t usually involved in day-to-day running of the war, however one of the criticisms of Rumsfeld by the generals is that he was, in their minds anyway, interfering in these matters.
Of course it is not all Rumsfeld’s fault…but when an organisation does badly, in any field, it is the top man who has to carry the can. The failures in Iraq, the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan- the American people clearly showed what they think about it.
#30 - Thanks for that, Paco. I feel stupid today, older than my age, even, & it just ain’t no fun. Your detective & his gal always cheer me up. I’d like a pitcher of beer & a pack of cigarettes, but I quit both those things. Paco’s Private Eye is my saving grace this morning!
I adore Rumsfeld. I like his smartass remarks, the off-hand way he treats the piranha who believe they know The Only Way. The picture in my head is now and always will be him in a suit & tie, on the lawn at the Pentagon, humping one end of a stretcher.
Rummy couldn’t fix what is inherently wrong with our war-fighting capability because it was created & run by scum who don’t want us to have superior war-fighting capability - many of whom are in Congress to this very day.
So spiffing job by Rumsfeld then, Andrea and Rob?
Not perfect, but better than average. Certainly better than most of his critics expected.
Committing about 10 000 troops only in Afghanistan has also let the Taliban get a foothold again.
Actually, the problem has more to do with the Taliban having a safe sanctuary in Pakistan. So long as they have that, you could pack Afhganistan shoulder-to-shoulder with troops and it’d still be a mess.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 11 09 at 10:53 AM • permalinkWell, I agree that the public perception of our foray into Iraq is bad, although the reality is that we were fighting a guerrilla war and prodding Iraq to rise to its own defense at the same time, a miraculously short time, and are probably doing as well as can be expected there.
The real failure, if any, is the silence from the administration on this subject. Why weren’t Bush and his minions out and about talking about the history of Arab war, jihadism, the noble exploits of our troops, the difficulty of a Lebanon-like war? All we got was, go shopping, stay the course, hospitals and schools, Muslims are good. In short, don’t those people read the blogs?? There is a coherent rationale for our position in the world, and the blogs express it every day!
The public is hungry for this information, and the pols acted like we could not handle the truth or make one sacrifice. CNN and Al Jazeera filled the vacuum, and so here we are.
“This was an ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, under-resourced war which had no contingencies, no militarily-achievable objectives, no understanding of the historical realities of the region, no awareness of the tribal nature of the several ethnic and religious groups in the country, no exit strategie*s*, no truly international support, no serious domestic support from informed, educated people who could actually point to Iraq on a map and who knew very well that whatever else Saddam was, he was not responsible for 11 September…”
LOL. The war has been a smashing success for America and a total disaster for our enemies.
Ask the Hussein family who won.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 11 09 at 12:28 PM • permalink#102, Patricia:
Why weren’t Bush and his minions out and about talking about the history of Arab war, jihadism, the noble exploits of our troops, the difficulty of a Lebanon-like war?
When the infrastructure in place to disseminate news and views is very nearly wholey owned and operated by those loyal to the views and goals of the enemy, there’s little use in constantly beating your head against that rock.
The duty is upon our news broadcasters. They refuse to carry out their duty because they are compromised.
Anyone attempting to speak around them is either shut out or shouted down or beaten into non existance by the continual recitation of the rant-o-chant.
Grimmy, good post, yes the SECDEF isn’t usually involved in day-to-day running of the war, however one of the criticisms of Rumsfeld by the generals is that he was, in their minds anyway, interfering in these matters.
Actually, that is propaganda. You have not heard anyone that actually has anything to do with the chain of command or decision making processes make that claim.
You’ve heard “talking heads”, retired military that are not involved and a mess of fucktards that got played by Weaselly Clark the politico that used to pose as a military officer make that claim. You’ve heard politicos sympathetic to the enemy make that claim.
We’ve heard from those that were and are involved in the process and they’ve unanimously refuted that claim.
Be weak and feckless enough to become a consumer of enemy propaganda and you become the enemy.
Well, sure, let’s just push the Northern Alliance aside while invading Afghanistan - now there’s a winning strategy.
And people like you are complaining that the US has been seen as too much of an occupier in Iraq? Gawd.
Come on, PW, we coulda put the Marines in over the Afghan beaches in 24 hours flat, man… (I know, I know… but don’t tell him... ;D)
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 09 at 09:34 PM • permalinkSo basically your smart-ass post adds nothing
That summarizes your contribution to this thread nicely, deano.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 11 at 01:58 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Will Gaia be appeased now?