Redstate

why not just face it... he (Ronald Dumbsfeld)... [we can make it all go away just that quickly. Profanity and lewd references are a sure way to make it happen. Leon]

What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius

What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius

did max dec mer really say that, or is that from a Haggard sermon?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

Want a broader brush with that paint you are spreading?

I just had lunch with a soldier-2 tours in Baghdad and 1 in Afghanistan-lost hearing to an IED, lost part of his femur to a sniper's bullet...and he spent an hour telling me just the opposite.

Some in an ArmyTimes editorial wanted him gone...you didn't analyze exactly WHY in your generalizations...perhaps you may want another shot at sharing with us how the writers of that editorial speak for the whole of the Army? The other branches? The Joint Chiefs? Hmmm?...

America did not vote to fire Rumsfeld...YOU may have, but I did not...and we make 2.

Rumsfeld's head has been sought for a very long time because the opposition in this freakin' madhouse of a country can't take down Bush or Cheney. They have come up with every freaking angle they can muster to say the war is bad, failing, unwinnable...and that our soldiers are terrorists and babykillers(sound familiar?)...just to garner votes and retake control of the country...well they succeeded-and Rumsfeld is just the easy mark.

Please-don't generalize and scramble this (expletive removed in deference to the posting guidelines) around here on the back of a man who deserved better from this country than what he got from it...especially after all he gave TO it.

What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius

I never once slighted Rumsfeld as a man who wasn't doing his job. And yes, I'm sure there are many military members who supported him and thought he was grand. And YES I recognize that the opposition has been almost deranged in its opposition to Rumsfeld. BUT! Having said that, he was not making a good case for our staying in Iraq and soldiers recognize that. If soldiers are going to risk their lives in Iraq, America has to be behind them. Part of that is making sure that America has confidence in those who are running the show. REGARDLESS of how well he did, America had lost faith in him. Both on the left (who really never had faith with him in the first place) and on the right with those who felt we needed more troops and better planning. I'm sorry that he was your guy, but look at the polls, the majority of people wanted him gone and thought he wasn't doing a good job. At that point, he becomes more of a hinderance to our goals of victory in Iraq. I want to win, and more importantly I WANT AMERICA TO WANT TO WIN! We need someone who can better make that case. People here seem to think that Rumsfeld was a god for sticking it to the press, well I'm sorry but thats not enough.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

Who are these soldiers of whom you speak?

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

who are in the ROTC program with me at GW. In addition to the ROTC students like me, we have a bunch of guys with prior enlistment experience who are using the GI bill to go to school and get degrees. They're great guys with interesting stories, always helpful when you feel like you can't get through another pushup at PT. Are they policy makers who are setting forth a grand vision? No, they're just good guys trying to follow orders.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

I certainly have no objection to the use of ROTC to "go to school and get degrees," that's what it's there for, after all, but I'm not sure that a poll of such candidates at GW equates to taking the pulse of the active duty troops in Iraq.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

And perhaps you're right, I don't think you are, but for the sake of argument lets say a majority of the military supported rumsfeld. Even you must admitt that this majority was not overwhelming. There was a substantial portion of the military that lost confidence in Rumsfeld (lost, not never had, but lost) and that hurts the mission. I don't see why people act as if this was the worst thing to have ever happened. He was becoming a drag on the wars popularity, cut him loose.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

I'm not sure I must admit anything of the sort. Where is this majority? The outpourings of joy? Why doesn't this extend to senior brass?

Curious.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

1. Army Times is not an Army publication, it's published by the parent company of USA Today. So it's not a good idea to draw any inference from the [Military Branch] Times publications.
2. I only hang out with Marines - except here - and they love Rumsfeld. He's the one civilian they have confidence in.
3. Political Science isn't science. It's political.
4. International Affairs should only be conducted with condoms.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I find it amusing, kyle8, that you can use a sentence as a slur yet I see it as a compliment:

"He was not loved by the Pentagon, and was a divisive figure."

You see, I think the point of a civilian supervising the military is not to have them all sit around singing kumbaya together and that personal popularity should not be the first priority of a Secretary of Defense. I know, I know, I'm funny that way.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

Sure you want a strong Sec of Def. but not necessarily someone who pisses everyone off all the time.

Look the world is harsh and when you deal at the very top of the heap the fall can be hard. The man is in my opinion a failure.
He should have been canned at least two years ago. Why do so many people seem to have some sort of sentimental attachment to him?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The attachment may be many things, but it is hardly sentimental. It has to do with respect for the rather extraordinary record of achievement Mr. Rumsfeld has chalked up over his five + years in office. You might read about it here, and then rethink.

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2006/sixyears/

The Wall Street Journal said today in an editorial on this subject that "When the history of this era is written, Mr. Rumsfeld is likely to fare much better than his many critics assert. The secretary has been a convenient political foil--for Democrats, for generals who didn't like the way he exercised civilian control ot the Pentagon, and especially for erstwhile war supporters who wanted to blame the Iraqi insugency on some individual rather than on the inevitable complications and setbacks of any war."

Somehow I think history's judgment on this may be more sound than yours.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

It was not inevitable that the insurgency go as bad as it did. Hell even to this day they haven't done some of the most basic things like interdicting travel from Iran and Syria, and why? because they didn't have enough people, why? because of Rumsfeld. I do not share your opinion that history will be all that kind to him.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Ah, I see, you're among those who Victor Davis Hanson referred to as "indulging in the unusal litany of postbellum faultfinding: 'Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld must resign'' 'we must go into Iran or Syria or else I give up on the President;' 'you put too few troops in Iraq to have allowed my brilliant ideas of reconstruction to work.'"

Heh. I'll trust history.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

about going INTO Iran or Syria. and I was critical of the policies on the ground from the very beginning because even a modest student of history like myself could see that they were not going to get good results the way they were going about it.

I am still at loss to understand this mindset. Do you think failure should be rewarded because some one tried hard?

I believe when you take a step back from this and view it more objectively you will feel a little differently.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Again, amusing:

"I believe when you take a step back from this and view it more objectively you will feel a little differently."

I think this applies a little more to you than to me.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

I am not the one who seems so emotional about the issue.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Apologies, I must have misunderstood. You suggested that those of us who support Secretary Rumsfeld have a "sentimental" attachment to him, which I interpreted as "emotional." I protested it had to do with job performance, which is apparently what you mean by "emotional?"

Oh dear, I'm still confused.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

BUT he made manyh mistakes! He canceled the deployment of the first cavalry division! And everyone here who dismisses the idea of more troops because we "have to go to war with the army we have and not the army we want" is being silly, because we had a whole nother division set to go that he canceled. Beyond that, since it's in the past and we have to look foward, he really failed, just like our president, to show how we are making progress. I believe we are, I have had many conversations with those who returned from Iraq and they confess as much as well, but he and the president have let the enemy define victory for us, which is NOT okay. Most importantly of all, he lost America's confidence. Did he deserve better? Yes he did, he should have been let go much earlier, like after the 2004 election. Then all the mistakes of the war wouldn't have been put on him. Oh well.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

Emphasis added

How Abizaid Sees It
Published: Oct 6, 2006

During a recent visit to U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Tribune editorial page editor Rosemary Goudreau asked Gen. John Abizaid about troop strength.

Goudreau: Would more American troops help improve security in Iraq?

Abizaid: You have to look at the total posture of the American armed forces. There's 500,000 people, give or take a few thousand, in the Army. We've got 122,000 of them in Iraq. If you're not in Iraq, you're either coming back from Iraq or getting ready to go to Iraq. The strain on that force over time has got to be gauged by all of us.

And everyone here who dismisses the idea of more troops because we "have to go to war with the army we have and not the army we want" is being silly, because we had a whole nother division set to go that he canceled.

Do you think Gen Abizaid is "silly?"

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

I've followed your commentary and I must say it is some of the most ill-informed garbage I've ever read.

And everyone here who dismisses the idea of more troops because we "have to go to war with the army we have and not the army we want" is being silly, because we had a whole nother division set to go that he canceled.

Any idea how profoundly idiotic this sounds? Your position is that by increasing the ground strength in March 2003 by 13,000 troops would have solved anything. And you do know that the Aviation Brigade of 1st Cavalry was in the invasion?

Just out of curiosity, when did they start teach force planning in ROTC. It's been a while since I was in an ROTC detachment and they were focused on training us to be lieutenants.

And anyone who can't comprehend the simple fact that you do go to war with the military you have not the one you want is just not qualified to post on the subject. Do you think McDowell preferred the army he was leading at First Manassas over the one Grant led at Appomattox? Do you really think General W F Dean preferred the troops of Task Force Smith over those led by Matthew Ridgway three years later. The concept is really so incredibly obvious that I am stunned that it can be contradicted.

The army we took to war in 2003 was designed to fight the Soviets on the plains of northern and central Germany. HMMWVs were not armored because they were not conceived of as combat vehicles, they were administrative vehicles. Most rifle companies had three sniper rifles and zero trained snipers. The force structure has huge amounts of air defense artillery, etc. There was exactly one battalion dedicated to PW camp operations on the books. Army aviation tactics were geared towards engaging large armored formations not small numbers of ground troops. And on and on.

And as AE pointed out earlier, I'm pretty sure your experience in ROTC at GW (which doesn't have an Army ROTC program so I'm assuming when you say you are enrolled in ROTC at GW what you actually mean is that you are enrolled in college at GW and cross-enrolled in ROTC at Georgetown or Howard) isn't dispositive of much more than your experience.

I don't think that there is any doubt that in peace time, Rumsfeld would have been seen as a brilliant, even great peacetime Secretary of State.

I think that most of his structural changes and focus changes in the Department of Defense are very good ones.

But his legacy will forever be seen through the lense of a horrendus strategic mistake, the invasion of Iraq, and the drumbeat of misjudgements and errors made in Iraq, particularly after the End of Major Combat Operations.

All the good structural work will be lost behind his operational failures.

I think the key to this comment is that you feel Rumsfeld's failures come after major combat operations. How, precisely, is the DoD supposed to control reconstruction efforts that are supposed to be the responsibility of the State Department, for example?

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

Two points:

First, there was a gross failure to keep civil order once Baghdad fell, which got the occupation off to a terrible start. The additional damage to the infrastructure from the looting increased the difficulty of reconstituing a funtional Iraqi society.

Your claim of responsibility of the state department is simply incorrect. Garner and Bremer both reported to Rumsfeld. As their supervisor, Rumsfeld is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the CPA, which, to put it kindly, failed to distinguish itsself.

Wick

Jay Garner, yes. Paul Bremer, no. If you check, you'll find that Bremer reported to the White House. But what's interesting is in neither case has Mr. Rumsfeld tried to evade responsibilty for their actions. Also of interest is your assertion that State had no agency in Iraq--my goodness, talk about being incorrect.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

"On May 10 [President Bush] replaced Garner with former Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, appointing him the president’s envoy to Iraq. Bremer would administer a new organization called the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. He would report to the president through the secretary of defense and be vested with the broad policy-making and budgetary authority to build the new Iraq."

Bing West. No True Glory. See Also, Fiasco, by Thomas Ricks.

I didn't say that State had no agency in Iraq. However, contrary to contention in the post I was replying to, it was Rumsfeld, not State, who oversaw the CPA, which had the Primary responsibility for the reconstruction.

Wick

You misread me.

I believe that Rumsfelds' errors started with his support for the invasion itself. We we invaded a country on the pretext that it was a imminent threat to the United States. We did that on shaky and contradictory evidence, which has virtually all since been discredited, and Rumsfeld was a principle architect of that Strategic Mistake.

Then having advocated for that serious strategic mistake, he failed to head the Powell Doctrine and go in with overwhelming force and have a firm exit strategy. He ignored the advice of the Army Chief of Staff on how many troops we would need to secure Iraq AFTER the fall of Baghdad, and ignored warning from the State Department that were almost prophetic about the dangers of the occupation. He ignored the logic that he embraced in Pappa Bush's administration that argued against us going to Baghdad in 91. And when the looting started and the collapse of civil order became evident, he dismissed it as nothing important.

He either failed to recognize that opposition to the Coalition came from a broad range of sources, not just terrorists, he failed to understand that as the violence became more secterian and less Islamist terrorist, we needed to adjust our approach to the war.

Stay the Course is a slogan, not a strategy.

So his failures began before the End of Major Combat Operations and continued long after.

750 word essay on the run-up to the second phase of the Gulf War, concentrating on the use/non-use of the term 'imminent threat' by Administration officials. Use only transcripts from primary sources, please.

Write it up, send it in via the Contact Button and we'll turn your account back on.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I suspect History's judgmen will also be more sound than the WSJ's.

Wick

There was the policy of ground control in Iraq that was all the State Department's doing, but it required the Pentagon to oversee and implement it.

Then there were the holdovers from the Clinton Administration who could not be immediately booted out and obstructed Rumsfeld's institutional reforms.

Then there was the preening Powell . . .

The State Dept was not responsible for CPA. Garner and Bremer reported to Rumsfeld.

Initially, the CPA was a joint state/defense project, but defense had command and got rid of state dept people that Garner wanted.

Wick

Trust me, I'm not looking at the bathwater with rose-colored glasses, but please direct me to an example of such water being crystal clear during a war.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

You're 100% correct: that water is never clean. However, that's not the point I'm making.

We have a proud tradition of adapting and changing our tactics (and yes, strategies) when it's clear the ones we adopted -- as charming and compelling as they may have seemed at their birth -- prove to have failed. He steadfastly refused to do so. His call, his glory (or the abject lack thereof).

And that's the message. He championed a strategy which did not work, and clung to it to the bitter end. What's more, he went against the prepared and reviewed and wargamed planning in so doing. Had it worked, he would be hailed. It did not, so will be widely judged accordingly.

I don't think it's unreasonable to judge a decision maker's performance by the outcome of the decisions they make.

I couldn't disagree more strongly--tactics have been adjusted repeatedly on the instigation of the commanders in the field. Or are these commanders lying when they claim that Secretary Rumsfeld has always listened to them? Are you so sure that the strategy today under Casey and Abizaid is by Rumsfeld's, not their, design?

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

Tactics are easy to change. It's the strategy which is harder.

There is a gaping chasm between "being listened to" and "being allowed to move forward as one believes is best." Nobody much claimed that Rumsfeld DIDN'T LISTEN -- it's that, after listening, he whittled and ground down opposition until he got his way.

When Franks went to him with the standing invasion plan, Rumsfeld listened -- and then proceeded to question and poke and prod until we got from a 450K+ troop hold-and-secure plan to a super-quick and nible "in-and-out" plan.

I believe we have are blessed to have a number of really gifted general officers; we also have some who were frankly prized for their ability to get along with Rumsfeld and his abrasive managerial style (the whole "wire brush session" thing).

I think the viewpoints and approach of those more versed in counterinsurgency warfare (e.g., Petraeus) are winning out over the "harder not smarter" crowd. The approaches championed by the former group were NOT driven from the top-down and are only now really being implemented (and I think the jury is out as to whether the boat's already sailed).

God love 'em all for their hearts and dedication, but (as with Rumsfeld) heart alone is not the measure of a man -- especially a military leader.

Result matter. Period.

I was far more comfortable with the prospect of my soldier son going to Iraq or Afghanistan after Christmas on Monday than I am today. My wife and I are frankly terrified of the prospect of our son being sent in harms way with the Country in Democrat hands and with a President who appears willing to placate them.

In Vino Veritas

I wish your son and your family the best of luck, and I know we all appreciate your son's sacrifices.

I can't much disagree with that you say, other than to add that I think many of us disappointed/horrified in Rumsfeld's performance would argue that the mishandling of the war in Iraq has made it more dangerous for him than it would have been otherwise. Nevertheless, that's undeniably how the cookie crumbles.

> There was plenty of info from the White House about how hard and long this war would be, if people were willing to listen.

I'm not sure which war you refer to. The war on terror will definitely be a long one. The problem is that what is happening in Iraq now seems to be mostly a civil war, with a few terrorists thrown in. So I don't see what it has to do with the war on terror.

As far as the non-terrorist conflict in Iraq, nearly three and a half years ago (June 2003), Rumsfeld gave his dead-ender speech:

Asked at Pentagon press conference about the Iraqi resistance, Rumsfeld described it as "small elements" of 10 to 20 people, not large military formations or networks of attackers. He said there "is a little debate" in the administration over whether there is any central control to the resistance, which officials say is coming from Saddam's former Baath Party, Fedayeen paramilitary, and other loyalists.

"In those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute, Gen. (Tommy) Franks and his team are rooting them out," Rumsfeld said, referring to the U.S. commander in Iraq. "In short, the coalition is making good progress."
...
"I think these people are the last remnants of a dying cause," he told the House Armed Services Committee. He said U.S. forces "have the sympathy of the population, not the surviving elements of the Baathist regime."
...

A month earlier President Bush declared "End of major combat operations" from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Even though the speech said "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous", there was no indication that there would be fighting of this scale, and casualties so high, 3 1/2 years later.

Later we heard about a series of steps to write a constitution and elect a government under it. They have all been completed.

This raises some questions, which the Bush Administration should answer:
Is everything in Iraq proceeding according to the original plan and time table?
Excluding the forces in our coalition, is everyone fighting in Iraq a terrorist?
How is the Iraqi conflict related to the war on terror?
What are our goals in Iraq?

I always assumed there were good answers to these questions. I really think that was all the American people wanted to know. Unfortunately President Bush hasn't answered, delaying until after both Houses of Congress were lost, partially from that lack of communication. Now it appears he is going to wait until a committee gives recommendations in January before telling us what is going on.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but quite a bit of that is plain-and-simple revisionist history.

Separate the GWOT from Iraq pre-war (obviously they're linked now). If anything, in the run-up to the war we were told that it would be quick, in-and-out, and over-and-done with. Repeatedly.

When the insurgency sprung up we were told it was no big deal, that it was the dead-enders and few remaining Baathists. Repeatedly and with florid language.

Well, obviously, that was all bunk. So it's wrongheaded to blame the people who believed what Rumsfeld and his cronys told us. They are his words (and those of his supporters), and the record is crystal clear.

Very well said. They were bold in their theories and predictions. And utterly wrong.

> Separate the GWOT from Iraq pre-war (obviously they're linked now).

I'm not sure there is a clear link between the global war on terror and the war in Iraq. I don't think the foreign fighters would last very long if all of the Iraqis turned on them, especially since we could do the killing if only the Iraqis gave us the intelligence. So this looks to me like a civil war between sunnis and shiites, with foreigners used as tools and allies by the native Iraqis. Iran and Syria provide assistance, but that's only because some of the Iraqis want them to.

was corrupt and dysfunctional to it's core. Generals don't make defense "doctrine" and if they did it should be focused on establishing a method for carrying out their mission rather than avoiding responsibility.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/rums...

Oh, yes, trendy theories. You mean like revising the organization of our forces from one that's geared toward a land war in central Europe against the Red Army, to one that's a better fit for engagements like Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and Afghanistan?

Why do you oppose that?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You seem to have formed a misapprehension as to the division of responsibility between the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom.

Rumsfeld's critics were all over CNN and the BBC in 2003 saying it would take months and costs tens of thousands of lives to reach Baghdad. I am sure you recall that it took a little under three weeks, exactly as Dick Cheney predicted.

That phase went very smoothly, and far better than anyone but the biggest optimists - such as I - expected.

Rumsfeld wanted to establish an Iraqi civilian government run mostly by exiles almost immediately. The CIA and State Department vetoed the idea and tried to discredit some of the leading exiles on charges of spying that turned out to have no legs.

Instead the Coalition went down the dead end of military administration, followed by American civil administration, followed by Iraqi baathist administration, followed finally by elections in which the exiles were voted into office.

What were the things Rumsfeld did right? The military things. The ones he had responsibility for.

And Powell? Still waiting.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net