I am satisfied with the Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld is the right man for the job.
By AcademicElephant Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (82) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, Charles Bird took to the Redstate front page to express dissatisfaction with the progress of the war in Iraq. He would like to see a fresh start, and he is not alone. A number of well-known and respected names in both main-stream and new media joined him as "The Dissatisfieds." As I understand it, their proposed change in policy hinges on the dismissal of the Secretary of Defense. There are other nuances, but the main thrust of their argument is that Mr. Rumsfeld's removal would revitalize the Iraq mission and lead to the swift and linear victory that we should have achieved at some point in the last 24 months, had the aggressive but clueless Mr. Bush not clung to the fantasy that the man who had just won two historic campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq was indeed providing him with the best professional military advice available--advice superior to that which he might have found on the pages of the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the National Review, Right Wing Nuthouse, QandO and, as of yesterday, even on the front page of Redstate. The Dissatisfieds are so convinced of their rectitude on this issue that they are calling for a full-scale conservative revolt against the administration, resulting in Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster.
Well, Charles, calibrate me, but I don't think you have the full picture here.
The post begins with "three facts [that] are not in dispute," a phrase that now sets off warning bells for me. I've learned to be wary of "known facts," but I must say that as befits a Redstater, Charles does better than most in that he gets two and a half out of three:
- It's been 38 months since the end of major combat operations.
- The security situation in Iraq is still bad, especially since the Golden Mosque bombing last February.
- Donald Rumsfeld is still the Defense Secretary.
Check.
Half check.*
Check.
*I assume Charles means "Baghdad," not Iraq for point two, which is a rather important distinction, hence my questioning of the second known fact. We'll call that the half point.
But largely, so far so good. These are facts. Even indisputable ones. What is very much in dispute here at Redstate, however, is Charles' ensuing interpretation of them. Facts can be kittle cattle. In and of themselves, they are neutral, and a different perspective can bring them to a very different conclusion. Take me, for example. I consider Charles' same facts, and conclude that the summary replacement of Donald Rumsfeld would be a deeply unfortunate development for the Bush presidency, both in terms of how the GWoT is prosecuted for the next two and a half years, and how history will judge this performance. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld now might well provide Charles with his fresh start, but to what end? In and of itself, this is not a viable policy goal. It would remove a highly effective, experienced, intelligent and creative public servant who is willing for whatever reason to get up at 5:30 each morning and grapple with the challenge of being the civilian head of the largest military in the history of the planet. It deprives President Bush of a senior counselor at a time when he most needs trusted voices that are not influenced by media reports or a personal political agenda. And it sends the message that those media reports and individuals whose ambitions are at odds with the war are right--that they have been right all along. These voices maintain at ever-increasing volume that Iraq might have been winnable in the spring of 2003, but it's rapidly becoming an unrecoverable disaster now. Defeat is nigh inevitable. It is, as I was deeply disappointed to see Charles suggest, another Vietnam.
As I said, I come to a rather different conclusion. I think these voices are dead wrong, and caving to their demands would be disastrous.
Let's start with point one. I'm not claiming perfection for the Iraq campaign; I wouldn't call any war perfect. That is not its nature. A perfect war of minimal casualties and no human error would probably have to be fought against a pretty insignificant enemy for low stakes. Neither condition applies to this conflict, which has engaged a rapidly transforming foe and is the primary front in a global battle that has religious and cultural as well as military significance. And it has had its ups and downs, which have been dutifully reported by a media that has seemed all too often to have a vested interest in its failure. But I'm not so sure it has been as dissatisfactory as the undersigned of Charles' post contend, at least from the standpoint of the Department of Defense. At the conclusion of major combat operations in 2003, a reasonable person might have expected that the DoD's primary responsibility for Iraq had concluded. That it was time to move in the diplomats, which is what happened in the form of Jerry Bremer and the Transitional Authority. Mr. Bremer is not a bad or incompetent person. But someone forgot to copy al Qaeda on the memo that the war was over, and we found ourselves fighting them in Iraq. This phase of the war was not traditional "major combat" like taking on the Republican Guard, but it was a fierce battle nonetheless. We might not have perfectly anticipated this development, but we fought them for eighteen months, and have wound up being successful. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been decimated and decapitated--to wit the inadvertent testimony of the sages who point out that we're not battling al Qaeda in Iraq anymore, we're confronting sectarian violence.
I think that's because we beat al Qaeda in Iraq.
Good for the DoD, some might say.
Now we're contending with the explosion of sectarian violence that has simmered in Iraq since it was formed, but which was fostered by the aforementioned al Qaeda and is being fanned by Iran. We can call the resultant lack of security, which is overwhelmingly occurring in Baghdad, Charles' point two. Make no mistake, this has been a grueling period. Is this what we wanted to be doing for the last six months? No. Did it have to be dealt with at some point? I think probably, and I will address this topic further below. I agree with Charles' assessment that this new phase began with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February, but it has quickly migrated from the provinces to roost in the capital where it can enjoy the strongest media attention, while the neglected provinces have settled into relative peace and prosperity. The situation in Baghdad has hardly gone unnoticed in the Pentagon or the White House; our forces have struggled to adapt to the new conditions on the ground while allowing the Unity Government to get its bearings independent of a US intervention on a scale that would overwhelm it as well as those inciting the violence. It has been a painful and non-linear process. But we've adjusted troop levels and tactics, and the new strategy is beginning to work, particularly over the last two weeks, as even Charles admits. I tend to see incremental but real progress on the ground in these situations as worth more than a mountain of paper (or rather virtual) hypotheses, but he feels progress is too slow and success is not guaranteed, so he is eager to abandon it in favor of massively-increased troop levels under a new defense chief.
Which brings us to point three, which is Donald Rumsfeld's continuing tenure as Secretary of Defense.
Again, I find myself agreeing with Charles. Mr. Rumsfeld's status is indisputable. As I type, he continues to serve at the President's pleasure, and is, indeed, the Secretary of Defense.
Here's the difference in interpretation: that is a "fact" for which I personally thank God.
Charles, on the other hand, sees Mr. Rumsfeld as the root of our problems in Iraq; he goes from bullet point #3 on the "fact" list to #1 on the "solution" list. Invoking a line from the movie "Ghostbusters," Charles declares that the Secretary (who, incidentally, is hardly a stranger to the private sector but perhaps better understands that the DoD is not the private sector) has not produced satisfactory results. Firing him will make room for a proverbial new blood, "who can put together a workable and executable plan for helping deliver a free, peaceful, democratic non-theocracy in Iraq."
I'm afraid I cannot understand this proposal as a bold new policy initiative. Calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation has become cliche, and I have found that these little episodes tend to tell us more about those who are demanding his removal than they do about Mr. Rumsfeld or his job performance. But since this one took place in what is after all my house as well, I thought it merited a more serious response than the posings of a Hillary Clinton or Anthony Zinni. To those who support the President and the mission in Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld should be more than a convenient scapegoat. I think the Dissatisfieds should give a couple of minutes' thought to the reality of the DoD and the GWoT, and then show me the man or woman who is guaranteed to achieve their stated goals faster and more effectively than Donald Rumsfeld.
I bet I could have his resignation on George Bush's desk in minutes.
But here's the rub. Guarantees are somewhat elusive in this business, and no name springs to mind. (As a caveat, I should note that I do not think Mr. Rumsfeld is indispensable. As do Secretary Rice and/or Vice President Cheney, he has his faults, idiosyncrasies and weaknesses. And like them, is he the not only man (woman) for the job. But that does not mean he is not the right man for the job.)
I would argue that Mr. Rumsfeld remains the right, indeed the best, man to be our Secretary of Defense because, quite simply, he has done what Mr. Bush tasked him to do under the difficult and uncertain circumstances of the emerging GWoT. He toppled the Taliban. He toppled Saddam Hussein. He has tried to make the DoD into the conduit for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq--a job the department has not in the past attempted, but which it alone may able to achieve in these theaters. And in his spare time, he has begun to implement a systemic transformation of the military that will make it far better prepared to pursue such missions in the future.
Charles and his Coalition of the Dissatisfied will have none of this. Mr. Rumsfeld has repeatedly refused to heed their proffered wisdom and commit 150,000 additional troops to Iraq, a recommendation that Charles presents as "the best professional military advice" the President could get. I'm not entirely sure what Charles means by this, but he can't mean the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the heads of CentCom and the multi-national force in Iraq, because they've all to a man maintained that they provided advice on troop levels. It just wasn't the advice the Dissatisfieds wanted them to give. Charles may refer here to the famous "dissenting generals" that called for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign last spring, but I have to disagree that they represent the best of the best.
Furthermore, with the "more troops" meme, I fear the Dissatisfieds are pursuing a a classic might-have-been which in reality might not have had the desired effect. In my hindsight estimation, those troops might well have imposed an artificial calm on Iraq, which would then have fostered dependence and resulted, when they were withdrawn, in a vacuum that would create a far a more violent and unstable explosion of sectarian violence than what we face now. I am sure of this? No. As Mr. Rumsfeld himself has said, history will judge that strategic decision to employ the troop levels that we have. But I am as convinced of my hypothesis on this as any of the Dissatisfieds are of their's. There is, however, an important difference. The smaller footprint strategy has actually been implemented, and even that large-footprint proponent Barry McCaffery has admitted it is a bona fide strategy and, furthermore, it is working. General McCaffery, like the Dissatisfieds, would like to see more rapid progress, which is natural enough. We would all like to see more rapid progress because we all want to see the war come to a successful conclusion. But those extra 150,000 troops in which the Dissatisfieds place so much faith never met the enemy. They never took casualties. The 135,000 that have been there have done both and are holding. Iraq is holding. Even, as shocking as this may seem, improving. In a completely unremarked but nonetheless remarkable statement earlier this week, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who has visited Iraq eleven times (not, incidentally a claim I can make--I can't speak for Charles) called what is happening there a "miracle."
Removing Mr. Rumsfeld at this critical juncture in Iraq's progress to give some artificial impression of a "fresh start" to a war-weary public would be to do that very public a terrible disservice. It would tell them that merely changing the face on this effort would change its nature. Unfortunately, it would do no such thing. I understand, believe me I understand, that this whole long and wretched and uncertain slog that is the Global War on Terror is dissatisfying. Personally, I would go farther than mere "dissatisfaction;" I find it frustrating, frightening and demoralizing. I don't want to fight it. I would say that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't want to fight it. But he knows it must be fought. He's demonstrated to President Bush's satisfaction that he can fight it, he's eminently qualified to do so, and he's willing to shoulder a burden that's worse than thankless. It seems to me that dismissing him now simply for the sake of doing so would be the height of irresponsibility. Charles, it's a free country and this site is a forum, not a conduit for propaganda. You and the other Dissatisfieds are welcome to your views. But if you want to rally others to your banner and mount a campaign to radically change Mr. Bush's foreign policy and hound Mr. Rumsfeld from office, I think you're going to have to come up with something more substantive than "fire his a**."
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | The Odd Couple — Comments (4) »
I am satisfied with the Secretary of Defense 82 Comments (0 topical, 82 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Don Rumsfeld has won two wars and is winning a third. He's shocked my home service, the Army, into relevancy and has reminded the military leadership that there is such a thing a civilian control of Department of Defense, a rather exotic view since Cap Weinberger left the building.
I feel safer knowing that Donald Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense. He, Condi, and John Bolton are my favorite Administration members, and if Bush lost any one of them, I'd have a much less positive view of the Administration and be much more anxious about the situation in Iraq.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
would Brava be more appropriate?
Forgive me, for I'm just a humble engineer with a failing memory and undeveloped Latin.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Rumsfeld is doing a very comptent and realistic job as head of the Defense Department. As he has said on many occassions, the War on Terror is going to be hard and long, like decades.
Let the Liberals whine and distort, then ask them what their plan is for fighting the War on Terror. Do I hear silince?
"...will be long and hard..." Like a porn star...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
on two basic points. First, that we get to see the top of the RS food chain have this mostly civil debate, right out front in public purview. I find it healthy, and I am pleased to see it out on the front page. That said...
What else fascinates me is the idea thata anyone would believe an issue of this magnitude will be remedied by a name plate being swapped out on a desk. For whatever shortcomings Rumsfeld or Bush or anyone else may endure in their respective positions, this will simply not solve the problems in Iraq, let alone, the GWOT.
A change at Sec. Def. will certainly assuage some of the angst among many from both the left and the right, but frankly this is not at the level of a Steinbrenner yanking a Pinella to up the win-loss ratio.
While I share the opinions of quite a few much more talented folks than myself over at Charles' post regarding the first Fallujah and many other individual disasters under this Administration's watch in Iraq, I do not share the notion that it will all be forgotten or will not happen again or will be magically done right from now on with Rumsfeld gone.
Looking for blame is not so much a fool's errand as it is a short-sighted view of the bigger picture. The truth of this Iraq situation goes much deeper than Rumsfeld or even Bush himself. We fight an enemy we don't understand, can't figure out how to defeat and don't have the will to face on an even playing field with their degree of commitment to win.
While we try to fight the "old way" of kill more of them than they kill of us, the world is all around, looking over our shoulders relentlessly "tisking" and wringing their hands and tying ours behind our backs over the issue of "innocent civilians", excessive force, and on term-usage such s "Islamo-Fascism".
Winning the GWOT starts with standard Military fare, and to Bush and Rumsfeld and the Joint Chief's collective credit they have done much in advancing this first phase of it. We are making progress in individual theaters of operation, in part because of the leadership and for the most part because of the "boots on the ground" trying to achieve their mission. Until the mission changes in these theaters, the leadership that designed it continues to do what they assigned themselves to do.
Now...when the mission changes, I may jump right out front to suggest a leadership change consistent with the new mission. Until the World community, the members of the "peaceful" side of the Islamic faith, and those who would blow themselves up or hide behind their women and children decide to figure out how to hold hands and get along and defer to their more peaceful God-fearing and respecting selves, I suggest the "kill more of them than they kill of us" strategy will remain the only appropriate course of action...and Bush and Rumsfeld are the only ones out there willing and committed to pursue that path.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
I think the biggest flaw with Charles' analysis is its unstated premise that war can be fought perfectly. Troops are human, commanders are human, and most of all, the enemy gets a say in the matter.
I wish the President would announce a new policy in fighting terrorists: if you hide behind noncombatants, we will send flowers to their funeral.
--
More brilliance such as that can be found at the Academy. And yes, I know how pretentious I sound.
Well said! I too thank God for our Secretary of Defense! Thank you for sharing Senator James Inhofe's informed statement. We do not hear enough from men of his caliber. If your dissatisfieds will get their noses out of the lies of the stinking MSM and read more from our wonderful men and women serving so bravely in Iraq, they will have a more realistic basis for judging our Secretary of Defense's performance in this ever changing conflict. As to where one would find the words of those who serve in our two theaters of war (its a shame Afganistan has to take a back seat to Iraq in the media, much has been going on there of late):
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/
and
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/
I am sure there are many more, those are only the two I tend to visit from time to time.
world sans the Soviet Union. It should have been done before 9-11, but neither Clinton or his SecDefs (from Aspin to Cohen) had the foresight or competence to do so. Don Rumsfeld has both, and thanks to him, we are and are becoming more prepared to fight the enemy such as it exists today and will exist tomorrow. If you want to deprive our country of the architect of our future defense because we weren't universally greeted as liberators and because soldiers do give their lives in wars, it's nothing short of myopic.
Are there still pockets of conservatives who think Cap Weinberger was insane?
I was one of those who was orginally enamored with Sec Rumsfeld and think he is a brillant thinker and administator.
Having said that, I think there have been some major mistakes that have been made and ultimately someone has to be held responsible for the disaster in Iraq.
Unfortunately he is the person in charge and thus he should be the one to pay the price for the failures in Iraq.
I don't understand.
The overwhelming majority of the alleged "failures" in Iraq can be laid squarely at the feet of MNF-I and CENTCOM. Yet not a single person has had the guts to demand the relief of a commander of MNF-I or of GEN Abizaid? Why is that?
But there should be a shake-up at some level. Why are people not being held responsible for their mistakes be it Gen Abizaid or whoever?
I don't know who made the mistakes but, gosh darn it, we need to shake things up around here, so let's fire the first person I see this morning.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
John Cleese of Monty Python fame went into the business of making corporate training videos. These are, needless to say, hilarious. One of them is called "No more mistakes and you're fired!"
The point is, humans do not know the future in advance. If you have someone working for you who never makes a mistake, it means that they are not trying enough new things. You should therefore get rid of them.
Any time humans try to do anything new, there will some flubs along the way. This is the human condition. As Rumsfeld's quote at the top makes clear, only in hindsight will we find out that trying it this way will be a mistake. Eventually — perhaps after 3 or 4 mistakes — we will discover that doing it that way works. This is how the world advances.
After WWII, we and the Russians fought over the German rocket scientists. Wehrner von Braun listed among his accomplishments that he had made 10,000 mistakes. When asked about this, he stated that in order to build a good rocket, one needed to make 20,000 mistakes first. He had already made 10,000 of them, so he was halfway home to making a good rocket.
The guys you shoot for making mistakes are the ones who make the same mistake over and over again. The ones who keep making brand new mistakes are the ones advancing your organization. The ones who never try anything new for fear of making a mistake are slugs.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
And if someone else is getting to watch John Cleese training videos, I was definitely cheated when I was forced to watch those insanely boring 'training' videos at the bank.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Because I ascribe the majority of "failures" in Iraq to the civilian side; Bremer, State Dept, USAID, etc. Seems to me that the civil affairs activities undertaken by military units, either official or ad hoc unit-level activities, were successful. I'm not sure that the same can be said for the guys in the shiny pants.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
And I agree 100%.
Granted: I do wonder if the need to demonstrate that Rumsfeld is not being fired will at some point keep him on artificially long (he's now, I believe, the longest-serving Defense Secretary, and not a young man), but I see no sign that he is slowing down or wants or needs to retire just yet, and I am very glad for that fact. Sadly, they don't make 'em like Rumsfeld anymore.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I think that is to some extent a leap of faith, Crank, that the President and Rumsfeld will have the clarity of vision to know when and if he's passed his expiration date, and act accordingly. We live and perilous times and th situation is unique, but it's not worth perpetuating for that reason.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Rumsfeld doesn't need the job. I've never gotten the impression he thinks he's indispensable. And I think he'd quit before he'd go to the point that he feels his legacy as SecDef is being damaged.
You put it better than I did, streiff--that was sort of point of the post, that if he thought there was a more effective candidate for the slot he would be out of there.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
The other point you make here that I think needs hammering home: the media has tried to flatten the narrative on Iraq, making it a featureless slog unchanged since the summer of 2003. But in fact there have been a number of big events and a number of changes, and nearly all of those (with a couple exceptions - First Fallujah, the Golden Mosque bombing, the retreat of the UN and the Spanish) have marked Allied advances or victories. The unfinished but now certain defeat of AQIZ is one of the big ones. If we actually map out a timeline of events rather than just a "mounting" casualty toll, the picture looks much more like the final stages of a war than like an endless slog.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Of getting you to produce that timline? Maybe make it a RS project for someone else here to do?
I'd do it myself, but lack of time..
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
The formation of a constitution and a functioning government were, no doubt, true successes. But, if Iraq collapses into civil war, they will have been irrelevant victories on the path to hell. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is becoming a more dangerous place, not a less dangerous one. The shift from insurgency to true-blue sectarian violence is one that threatens the very existence of Iraq, and the health of the region in which it resides. To believe that Iraq is nearing the final stages of success, or that there has been more good points than bad, is just plain ignorant. When militias of one sect start murdering people of another sect at an increasing rate, you've got a real problem on your hands. When the group that is suppossed to stop it, the Iraqi police, are the ones that are carrying out the violence, you've got an even bigger problem.
With any luck, the US and Iraqi forces will be able to turn the country around. But it should be known that a turnaround is exactly what is needed. Iraq is in a precarious position, and if anything, its moving further over the edge.
Fair enough, but do you think we should be sanguine about Iraq's current trajectory? To me, it seems like success is still possible but won't be achieved if things continue as they are. How do you imagine the violence ending? Are we getting closer to that point?
I don't have a crystal ball.
In my view, if we continue the way we are in Iraq, absent domestic politics, we're going to win this and we are going to win it in a manner that will embarrass all the critics.
I think there has been much more positive than negative there. 4 provinces now completely under government control. Nearly 300,000 army and police raised with the army doing a creditable job. Zarqawi's organization reduced to background noise. The Sunni insurgency negotiating to enter the political process. Electrical production back above pre-war levels. Oil being pumped and only four attacks on the oil pipeline in the past three months. Three elections held that were as fraud free as you will find.
So yes, I'm upbeat about our possibilities. Very much so. If there isn't a disaster in November 2006, I'll be much moreso.
I believe he is doing a great job, but I completely disagree with his doing away with the next generation of self popelled artillery, trying to phase out the main battle tank in exchange with some light weight vehicle, etc.
I do believe in overwhelming force, but that isnt in complete opposition to how Rumsfeld see it. It is different for each mission.
Where I disagree with him is in allowing important battlefield systems to be let go.
the Abrams tank but the proposed Crusader system was a dog which really didn't have a use now that we were no longer facing down the Red Army in the Fulda Gap or North German Plains.
They are big, gas-guzzling, expensive targets that are rapidly becoming liabilities in an age of sandal-clad terrorists lugging lethal and relatively cheap anti-tank missiles. We should pay close attention to what Israel does in the future with its tanks.
in every war since WW I.
There really isn't any comparison between the M-1 and the Merkava, qualitatively. The armor is completely different. The M-1 has proved indispensable in Iraq and I just don't see what the Israelis have to teach us based on their latest performance.
Personally, I'd much rather be behind several inches of depleted uranium plate than in sandals carrying an inexpensive missile. But that's just me.
I saw some stuff a while back on systems that would mount on tanks/APC's and work essentially like an Aegis system, shooting the anti-tank missile before it hits.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
First, the Crusader, among several dozen other miserable failures of MilTech research that were finally terminated by Rumsfeld after Billions of dollars were wasted on them. It was about time that it (they) went away.
Second, in terms of the Abrams: It is not being eliminated in favour of the Striker. The number of units built around the Abrams, which, admittedly, is probably the best piece of Heavy Armour in history, are being reduced in favour of more Mechanized Infantry built around the Striker.
There are several reasons for this. For starters, the weaponry the Striker is capable of carrying (note: Capable of, not neccessarily equipped with) are sufficient for killing the predominate piece of heavy armour in the world, the T-72. Why spend all the money and effort on the Abrams when it is no neccessary?
Furthermore, the Striker is smaller and lighter, allowing heavy, close fire support to be brought to bear in areas that the Abrams and Bradley can't even get to. It's faster than the Abrams. It carries an entire squad of infantry with all their gear (better than the Bradley). It's cheap and easy to produce and easy to transport. Modern warfare is changing (heh, Has changed) back to primarily an infantry battle. Armour is distinctly less useful than it was in the World Wars. Anything that can bring More Troops to the battlefield Faster and provide them with Close, Heavy Fire-support is a GOOD THING.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
As I recall the new NLOS self propelled 155 artillery is in development: smaller and lighter than Crusader so it can actually be transported by air; autoloading like Crusader so it cuts down on crew size; highly computerized so it can track its own rounds on the way to the target and can deliver mulitple rounds on target simultaneously. Combined sith the new Excalibur GPS round could be an "interesting beast."
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
I do enjoy watching a Rumsfeld press conference, the man answers questions like, well, I don't know what. But it's unique.
I'm a little mystified as to how the quote at the top of this article,
"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started,"
is supposed to demonstrate why he is a good Secretary of Defense.
For one thing, you don't predict the past. It's the past, it's over, there's nothing to predict. This is basically just a statement about how people don't get better at predicting things as time passes.
The above sentence is just one example of a problem I have with Rumsfeld, that he is notoriously hard to understand. His statements lack clarity, he always seems to dress things up in elaborate language which adds nothing and indeed detracts from his statements. Such verbosity is not proof of intelligence, it comes across as bluster, as empty statements of generalities. See his infamous "known unknowns" speech there.
As for his actual performance as SecDef, I'm not really competent to say, except to note that not everyone sees the overwhelming success that posters here acclaim.
And now I find myself drawn back to the "past was not predictable when it started" quote.
When, I wonder, did the past start?
Anyway, thanks for reading, I got a bit carried away there.
when it started, because when it started it was the present.
In other words, people look at the past reverentially and use it with authority because hindsight is 20/20. But when the events that are now being veiwed historically were beginning to unfold, it was just as difficult to predict the outcome as it is to predict the outcome of events that are beginning to unfold today.
Rummy just uses fewer words than I because he's a lot smarter than I am.
With respect to his performance as SecDef, there are three (at least) lightening rods that drive most of the criticism. In no particular order,
1. Transformation. Turning the military that was designed to fight the Russians into the military that will fight both tyrannys like Saddam and Iran and be able to successfully fight terrorists. Steps on the toes of a lot of Flag grade officers whose careers were built on stuff that is no longer applicable. Kinda like hiring an IT manager because he's a whiz at FORTRAN. OK in a very few places. Tough on the ego. Makes powerful enemies. See the whining of recently retired Generals.
2. His style with the press and Congress. Rummy doesn't take any guff from questioners. When they ask stupid questions or make statements disguised as questions he lets them know it. His answers are pointed and if the question was asked to make a political point he generally sticks his thumb in the eye of the questioner. Example: his answer to a reporter that was prefaced with the comment, "you guys like to ask questions like that. It assures you of a lead on tonights news, right?" Or his comment to Hillary's diatribe, "Oh my..."
3. BushDerangementSyndrome. Most of Rummy's enemies really want Bush's head on a pike but can't get it. So they're willing to settle for Rummy in an effort to embarrass the President. This includes all Democrats and some Republicans, most notably McCain and Hagel.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
In the business world, we project our profitability based upon the expectations of the economy. Seldom do we hit that figure exactly, in the way that we said we would. Things change, and we must adjust to reduce the impact of those changes.
It appears that the "disaster in Iraq" is one of those "everybody knows" facts, that has no basis in reality. The success of Iraq is well established. A government has been formed, and despite siginficant differences in opinion, and beliefs, the men of that government are working to establish security for the people. Considering that only three years have passed, that is miraculous.
Chuck
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. --Indigo Montoya (Princess Bride)
The Rumsfeld Way! http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/img/bow_rum_civil_defense.jpg
I can think of one man who's qualified to take over Sec. Donald Rumsfelds job.
General Wesley Clark.
Col. David Hackworth, in his 1999 commentary Defending America, wrote of Clark: Known by those who've served with him as the Ultimate Perfumed Prince, he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die.
See my comment below. I love being on the same side with BOTH streiff and Col. Hackworth.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
David H Hackworth:
"Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong • the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time."
From:
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2003/09/what_hackworth_really_said.ph...
"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early [i.e., was forced to step down as commander of U.S. forces in Europe] had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
Hugh Shelton
Clark is a nutjob.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
for a 10 year period prior to serving as SecDef.
On second thought, Clark hasn't really served in the real military for a very long time. Just the political military.
And BTW, nice contribution for being here almost 3 hours.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Secretary of Defense? Lord help us all. I think it'd be time to start building more bomb shelters at our homes if that ever happened. :-)
CNN he might get the RS subscriber list and bomb us?
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Tell me you're kidding about Clark. Please tell me you're kidding.
Or enlighten me as to how Clark guarantess success in Iraq after his bang-up job in the Balkans.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
...after his bang-up job in the Balkans.
Maybe you can elighten me on what his "bang-up job" in the Balkans entailed?
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
After the deep draft of "Diet Cherry Coke" that was just expelled from my nose on onto said computer device (I'm using a back-up right now) brought about by this comment.
Thanks for the laugh, though. That could be the funniest thing I've read in a month.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
...deserves a similar type of answer, AE. I'll be getting back.
And if by some crazy fluke of history I'm ever president, I want you to be my VP and the full cabinet.
But you're going to have to change your name. The MSM will tease you.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
As usual, a very comprehensive examination of facts.
Any argument not weighing the achievements vs. failures to derive an outcome is generally masked opinion. The main fact is that Mr. Rumsfeld stands atop a structure which has collectively worked to effectively wage and win this war. He is an important part of a daedal machine that has unquestionably kept us safe. Remember that in November.
The effort to dismiss Rumsfeld is generally surrounded by theoretical platitudes which ultimately predict his removal will produce progress. That argumentation is weak as it is not based on any strategy reformulation and is change “for the sake of change”. Is there reason for a strategy change? No, as you artfully point out AE the events have improved and we have adapted. This article is but an adumbration, yet it effectively exposes the “fire Rumsfeld” effort as weak, political, ad hominem rubbish.
Conversely, the liberal point of view is characterized by a lack of will to perpetrate this GWoT as is necessary. Accordingly, their view never includes an articulated policy (other than withdraw), uses an obstructionist political posture (Patriot Act, surveillance activities, etc.) and launches personal attacks on administration officials. This tact has now supposedly descended into like minded adoption by moderates and conservatives? Please show me one of the latter that presents an argument worth considering and I will yield the floor. Otherwise, I will perpetually be satisfied and thankful for this great Secretary of Defense.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
He was advocating change in the way our military is set up to wage war years before GWB was elected. He learned lessons from our VietNam debacle that many in the military still can not comprehend. THE DAYS OF STANDING ARMIES ENGAGED IN TRENCH WARFARE ARE OVER!! It only took a couple of weeks to defeat Iraq's standing Army but they simply melded with the population. It will take years to get them out. Israel just learned this lesson again in Lebanon. This new war on terror is different than any we have ever fought. For instants it will require crossing borders of other countries in "Hot Pursuit" of terrorist without restrictions if we are to succeed.
he was around in the 7th century to lay down the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam, and in later centuries to:
- design the fractured ethnic composition of Iraq
- discover the oil there
- overthrow the king in 1958 and install Baathist socialism
- advise Saddam on the construction of his police state
- create the religious justification for terrorist groups to kill civilians
etc.
Although Rummy is talented, to say he's the cause for the problems in Iraq would be to make him an incredible overachiever.
So we must fall back to Explanation B: the terrorist activists in Iraq, free to choose good or evil, free to choose peace or murder, chose the lousy choices. Believe it or not, American actions are not the only causality in this world. (Unless you live on Planet Kos, where all is clear.)
If he had been we wouldn't be in such a pickle now.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I overshot the mark somewhat because I wanted Rumsfeld's removal to be A main thrust, not THE main thrust of the post. I made six points about what I'd like to see in Iraq, five of which do not call for Rumsfeld's ouster. Put it this way, if items two through six are reasonably well executed, and if "new ideas and fresh thinking" are added to Bush's inner circle without having to put Rumsfeld out of the picture, then I would be OK with that. In fact, I would no longer be a Dissatisfied. I also wrote this: "Not all of the Dissatisfieds agree on all of the particulars, but we do agree that this is a critical time, that the likelihood of our losing this venture in Iraq has increased (not diminished) and that more productive steps need be taken." The current operation in Baghdad looks promising, as I wrote, but quite frankly I'm starting to get jaded about promising starts that later do not take hold.
I assume Charles means "Baghdad," not Iraq for point two, which is a rather important distinction, hence my questioning of the second known fact.
I agree that security is not bad in all of Iraq. Kurdistan is about as dangerous as Utah (to paraphrase Michael Totten), and the Americans have turned security over to the Iraqi government in a few of the more sparsely populated provinces. Basra isn't going all that well because of the emergence of Shiite fundamentalists, but that's the Brits' fault. The western provinces (such as Anbar), the Sunni triangle and other outlying areas, however, are still a problem though not as bad as Baghdad. Still, if you want to say that the problem is limited to Baghdad, fine (but I think you're understating it a bit), but you're nevertheless talking about a metropolitan area that holds about a quarter of the country's population, and it's a nasty business to mount counterinsurgencies in densely populated urban areas.
Defeat is nigh inevitable. It is, as I was deeply disappointed to see Charles suggest, another Vietnam.
In no way do I suggest that. Whatsoever. Let me be clear. I didn't include Buckley or Will or other conservatives who think we've already lost. The reason is because, as it stands right now, I don't think we've lost or won, and I won't go as far to say that we're winning or losing because I'm really not sure. We could potentially lose, which is what I said, but the outcome hasn't yet been determined, and I believe that those folks who say we've lost (or will lose) are way too premature in their assessments. I still think that victory can be achieved (which I define as a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic), but I am less confident of it now. This is why I described the Dissatisfieds the way I did. We are supporters of the mission, but we are "increasingly concerned and increasingly frustrated". Dissatisfieds and Defeatists are completely different animals, and I've long railed against defeatists such as Murtha and others who advocate immediate or phased cut-and-run.
I'm not claiming perfection for the Iraq campaign; I wouldn't call any war perfect.
Me neither, so we agree. Wars are messy and mistakes happen all the time. Mistakes should be built in to the assessments of any engagement. My contention is not that mistakes were made, or that we fight a perfect war, but that there have been too many mistakes, in my opinion, the sum total of which has severely damaged Bush politically and has made the outcome in Iraq more uncertain. Bush is the GM with 2½ years left on his contract and Rumsfeld is the head coach. While some of the blame can be laid at the feet of Bremer, he's no longer in the picture.
I think the Dissatisfieds should give a couple of minutes' thought to the reality of the DoD and the GWoT, and then show me the man or woman who is guaranteed to achieve their stated goals faster and more effectively than Donald Rumsfeld.
I grant you that that is the weak point in my argument.
Mr. Rumsfeld has repeatedly refused to heed their proffered wisdom and commit 150,000 additional troops to Iraq, a recommendation that Charles presents as "the best professional military advice" the President could get. I'm not entirely sure what Charles means by this, but he can't mean the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the heads of CentCom and the multi-national force in Iraq, because they've all to a man maintained that they provided advice on troop levels. It just wasn't the advice the Dissatisfieds wanted them to give. Charles may refer here to the famous "dissenting generals" that called for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign last spring, but I have to disagree that they represent the best of the best.
On the additional troops issue, I linked to John Keegan in Opinionjournal re in his review of Ricks' book. There are plenty of other credible voices who believe that we were undermanned after the end of major combat operations. I don't know what the right number should've been, but I've read a couple of persuasive pieces that 100,000 additional troops for an interim period would've done the trick (can't find the link at the moment).
Others may take a different view, but in my view the shortage of boots on the ground created a vacuum, leading to unnecessary chaos and the growth of insurgent and terrorist elements. There's a decent discussion at the Small Wars Journal here. But, for the sake of argument, even if the numbers of troops were okay, we were too long and too late in adapting our strategy to fighting an insurgent war. Ricks has a devastating account on our lack of recognition, lack of nimbleness and wrong tactics here and here. Twenty eight months ago, I wrote a piece at Tacitus detailing a successful clear-and-hold program in Vietnam, principles that were too slowly implemented in Iraq. For this failure, the top dog is responsible, and that dog is Rumsfeld.
Concerning the "dissenting generals", I purposely did not refer to them because it looks to me like several of them have their own axes to grind.
Concerning troops levels for Baghdad today, Max Boot is relying on the best advice, provided in 2004 by Gen. Richard Sanchez.
When challenged about the failures Rumsfeld is responsible for, I wrote six reasons in another thread:
1. Not enough troops to provide security after Saddam was removed, including Rumsfeld's canceling the scheduled deployment of the 1st Cavalry. In an Economist review of Cobra II, there were only 1,200 infantry in Baghdad and only one squandron in western Iraq. As it played out, chaos ensued, looting occurred and we did not do enough to secure Iraqi weaponry and munitions. All of this opened the door to a growing insurgency and a growing terrorist presence.
2. Responding too slowly to initial insurgency, and responding too slowly to the sectarian violence after Samarra.
3. Holding back on Fallujah after the four contractors were murdered.
4. We were too soft on al Sadr and his paramilitias.
5. Right now, based on what Max Boot had to say, I believe the Baghdad operation is understaffed. We shouldn't be moving troops from other parts of Iraq, we should be moving more troops into Iraq.
6. Abu Ghraib. The head coach is responsible for the actions of the players, and in this case, the players were too poorly trained to handle detainees.
I didn't talk much about Sadr, but we are paying the price for not obliterating him and his militia. Today's WA Post details his growing power. Troubling that this cancer was not chemo'd earlier.
We are also paying a price because we can do much more in the information war. The Israel-Hezbollah War should be a cautionary tale. The Defense Department needs a better war room (media war room, that is) and it needs a fully formed rapid response team. This is also on Rumsfeld's watch.
A last note. I didn't intend this post to be a "conduit for propaganda", and I regret that you did not give me the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
Just a quick point Charles--when I said the site was not "a conduit for propaganda," I meant that a pro-Bush-Rumsfeld stance was not required for admission. I regret that you thought I was accusing you of spreading propaganda.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
First, I am sort of stunned to see Rick Sanchez quoted approvingly by anyone who is concerned things aren't going well. Who do you think was the ground component commander when all the blunders you cite happened?
The troop level argument has been dismantled so many times by so many people that it makes my butt tired talking about it. The first question is where would those troops come from? And what the "boots on the ground" school never look at is who would replace them once they leave. An extra 100,000 the first year would have resulted necessarily in reductions in the the number of troops available to go to Iraq when the initial force rotated home on Sep/Oct 03. At that point you are left with two very unpleasant choices: drop the troop strength to something under 100K before Uday, Qusay, and Saddam were caught or extend tours in Iraq to something approaching two years.
I appreciate your having viewed some of the discussion at Small Wars. If you had read it a lot, of even the weekly Military Roundtable here at RedState where we have discussed this and Ricks' book, you would also know there is a substantial body of thought in the military right now that we went into Iraq with too many troops too long.
Again, we discussed Ricks here. He's been discussed in a lot of other places. To say the least his account is not uniformly received as accurate. I, personally, have a friend who is quoted by name in the book at some length. He tells me his quote is semi-manufactured and out of context. So if you want to go down the road of one book as having the Truth, I don't know what to say beyond offering my condolences.
I haven't read Cobra II or the reviews so I don't know what period of time it covers but in early April there was substantial parts of a Marine Division and of 3d Infantry Division in Baghdad. The Iraqi police, unlike the army, did not disband so I'm not sure what the "1200" infantry quote means. Are you saying that police or military police or artillerymen, or tankers don't count. I just really fail to see what this statement means in any meaningful context.
Your critique of our reaction to the counterinsurgency and Fallujah is also erroneous. In fact, the Fallujah objection is sort of counterfactual. In Ricks' book which you so approvingly cite Ray Odierno's 4ID is rapped for reacting too harshly towards the insurgency and I think you mistake the reluctance of senior officers and officials to use "insurgency" in statements with our reaction. I would submit a cursory reading of Stars and Stripes or MNF-I press releases or even the AP wire during 03-04 show that the forces on the ground were engaged actively in suppressing the insurgency. While we might not have comprehended the nature of it, that speaks more to the lack of experience of our HUMINT people in DIA, CIA, and the tactical units than to a strategic failing.
As for Fallujah, the Marines did not want to go into Fallujah after the contractors were murdered. When they did go they went in a way that optimized the negative aspects of the operation. So yes, they were told to stop because of the extraordinary difficulties it was creating for the interim Iraqi government and because it was radicalizing a Sunni population that was largely sitting out the fight. Again, what you claim as a mistake would have been a disaster of unimaginable proportions had they followed your advice.
It is also astonishing that you think the SecDef sets tactics on the ground. Surely you realize that he doesn't do that otherwise this is sort of counterproductive because then we can also blame him for every time a rifleman misses a target because that makes just as much sense. For the record, he doesn't and he can't.
Even were that the case your post at tacitus is dispositive of nothing more than it worked there, then. In the above post you denied comparing Iraq to Vietnam, if so, then why are you comparing operations in the two wars? Clear and hold operations require some force to be available to hold. We started carrying out those operations in the Euphrates Valley in late 04 so I don't see what your objection is.
Yes, in retrospect we were too easy on Sadr. A lot of us predicted in April 04 what was going to happen with him if he survived. That critique conveniently ignores the fact that we came under immense pressure from the Shia power structure to leave him alone and let them bring him into the fold. Had we continued after his forces we ran the real risk that we would have been facing a Shia insurgency. Is that your proposal? That it was better to take on Sistani and people allied with us rather than let Sadr go?
"Based on Max Boot" Well, that one is certainly impossible to argue with. I guess if Max Boot says its true then its true. You do see the utter ridiculous nature of predicating an argument based on an article by a columnist? Its like basing your economic beliefs on something by Paul Krugman.
Another bit of news here. The head coach at Abu Ghraib wasn't Rumsfeld. The military police brigade commander has been disciplined. She was the head coach there. The other coaches were Sanchez, who you haven't recommended be fired or demoted, and John Abizaid, again he's been the theater commander through this litany of failures and you haven't said diddly squat about him. So if your obejection is to performance and not just some degree of bandwagon support of the get-Rumsfeld crowd I find it really curious that you absolve all the various division commanders, corps commanders, and the CENTCOM commander from all responsibility and blame the SecDef for incorrect tactics at the platoon, company, and battalion level. Just which staff college did you attend?
As a final note, we talk about these subjects a lot here. Perhaps if you visited here and read what we do more often you could have included a few links to the thirty or so stories I have written on the various items you mention. Four on the influence of Sadr, one of those this week. Three on the difficulties in the British Sector. Four on the training of the Iraqi Army. Three analyzing the various errors that may or may not have been made.
One of our regular correspondents in our military roundtable feature, every Thursday for the past five weeks, is a Special Forces officer who is in Iraq regularly.
So a drive by posting like the one you contributed this week in light of what we write about here can rightfully be seen as a "conduit for propaganda." And if you regret for not having received the benefit of a doubt maybe some of us regret that you didn't treat us with a whole lot of respect.
Well said.