Redstate

with the Directors 100%

Well said and exactly right!

Now Rumsfeld needs the president to get on television, in prime time if necessary, and put an end to this media circus.  Where is the president on this?  I don't want written statements to the press, I want him to go on TV and slap down a reporter's question like he did last month to Helen Thomas.

Rumsfeld is modernizing the Army and some don't like it.

Don't think there not some fierce politics in the military.  Its like there are Republicans and Democrats (winners and Losers).

The whining Generals are like the whining Democrats.

This is a SECDEF whose first instinct when that airliner hit the Pentagon was to rush TO the scene and start rendering assistance to his people.

Second, the generals who have worked with him on a day-to-day basis (Myers, Franks, and DeLong) have been nothing but supportive of SECDEF Rumsfeld.  I'll put my stock in those three men and their assessment of Rusmfeld.

and as with many others here, I agree and support the official position.

With all this fuss about free speech and right to dissent, we need to constantly remind the detractors that a war is being fought and soldiers are fighting it so that they can express their opinions.

That said, let's await the books these most recent detractors will be publishing, and consider the extent to which this grandstanding will have been nothing but mere pre-marketing...dipping toes in the water so to speak.

When Wesley Clark comes out in support of a group, you can better bet the views that oppose HIS are the correct ones...and SecDef Rumsfeld is the least among these people that we can afford to villify or distrust.

You would not expect anything else from people who believe that things are going much better than what is being reported... From the initial looting to dissolving the Iraqi Army to Abu Ghraib to troops that go to war with "the Army they have not the Army they want".  Exactly what has this guy done right?  Oh, its the Bush administration... "we reward incompetancy". Line him up for a Medal of Freedom so he can stand next to Bremer and Tenet.  What a great trio!

Wes Clark was on MTP calling for Rumsfeld's resignation before even Bill Kristol had suggested it.

Too many people see this as a political issue, or a bookselling matter, when we're talking about national defense.  It's not a game, and Don Rumsfeld seems to be one of the people in Washington out of uniform who refuses to try to turn it into a game.

You're right, if Jesus was alive today he would certainly be a Dem, in fact He would probably be personally helping Pelosi & co keep all the abortion clinics running around the clock (and on the taxpayers nickel).

Because he is rather likely, particularly if other no-chancers step back, to run for the Democratic nomination for President again.

It's his job to criticize the President. Factor in the other generals however you please, but there's no reason to consider his rhetoric from a credible military standpoint.

Please migrate back to kos.

I am certainly not a religious scholar, but I think he would most definitley be non-political and appalled by political parties that use his name to promote their agenda.  I cannot fathom him either a Dem or Repub. but certainly not a supporter of this administration.  Does any Republican out there really think Jesus would be a conservative, come on really?    

First of all, I support the Directors' main argument that Rumsfeld should stay. To remove him now, in the midst of war, would (in the opinion of a former junior field grade staff officer) be way too disruptive.  

Instead, I'll address what I sense to be the overriding tone of this piece and many others like it--namely, that Rumsfeld's detractors are motivated mostly by hurt feelings and petty jealousies.  Again, from my vantage point of having served 20 years in the Army, here's what worries me about the Cult of Rummy.

The modernized Army is a "Task Force Smith" in waiting.

If you want to make a career Army officer wince, mention "Task Force Smith." to him.  TF Smith was a poorly-equipped force, hastily cobbled together in 1950 to "counter" the North Korean invasion.  The DPRK destroyed Task Force Smith.  Many of its soldiers were taken prisoner, and never emerged from North Korea.  

"Modernization" means breaking the Army's division-based structure into a smaller, brigade-based structure.  The idea is, instead of having to deploy whole divisions to a crisis spot, now we can just send a few of these "modernized" brigades.

Of course, the DOD promises all sorts of support for them.  But, I'm sure Army officers look on this plan, and can envision a time in the future where some brigade, somewhere, will get assigned the mission of covering a division's worth of ground.  But, they won't get all the support assets they need, because:

• "Well, we couldn't get the air basing rights to station A10 squadrons close to you. It's local politics--I'm sure you understand."
  
• "You know, renting ships is expensive.  So, we couldn't ship over all the supporting brigades we'd like.  You know, the new support brigades that now contain the artillery and attack helicopters the division used to have."  
  
• "And, we really need the rest of our brigades elsewhere.  Yes, we had planned to create more brigades in the whole Army force structure. But, manpower is really expensive.  And, we are in a budget crisis. So, I'm sorry, but you'll have to make do with less.  Work smarter, not harder.  Etc..."
  
• "And yes, you were supposed to get modernized equipment, to increase your lethality as a fighting force.  But doggone it, the budget got cut again.  So, well, you know..."

Modernization has done many good things, I must admit.  But, it's also pushed the Army closer to a day when an isolated brigade, on a peacekeeping mission in a remote place somewhere, gets stuck and surrounded.  And yes, when that happens, the DOD wizards will convene commissions, and readjust PowerPoint slides, and realign paradigms, yhada yhada yhada.

Which will, in the end, do nothing for the soldiers, isolated and poorly supported, who get overwhelmed.  Just as Task Force Smith was.

A lean and mean, deployable Army is also a more vulnerable one.

A HMMMV-based force is easier to deploy than an armored one.  But, it's also much more vulnerable to RPGs and IEDs.  And, a squad of lean, mean, modernized Army infantry in a HMMMV that encounters a large IED is often quickly transformed into a squad of mangled and dead men.  

The generals criticizing Rummy are not simply pride-impaired bureacrats, pouting in public.

No doubt the pride of many has been damaged.  But, it appears that Rummy likes abusing generals.  No one's saying that a general can't take a stern talking to.  But, IMO, "wirebrushings" are excessive.  Where does it say that a SECDEF doesn't have to treat his subordinates with respect? If you don't like the advice the general is giving you, then gently but firmly tell him to resign, or go somewhere else.  You're the SECDEF.  They know you give the orders, and they'll obey.

Instead, I get the sense that Rummy "wirebrushes" generals who displease him because:

• He knows he can
  
• He knows they have to take it
  
• It feels good.
  
• He senses his fans like hearing about it.

I thought that we Republicans were supposed to treat military professionals with more respect.  Wasn't it the Clinton White House where a staffer refused to speak to GEN Barry McCaffrey, saying that she "didn't talk to the military"-- and got away with it?  Wasn't it the Clinton White House where military aides were reportedly pressed into service handing out hors d'oreves at a WH party?  

Are we saying that, if a general disagrees with the SECDEF, they deserve to be personally treated as trash?  Is that the standard we as Republicans want to set? And, what's wrong with expecting the Secretary of Defense to treat his subordinates with some basic level of respect?  Who cares if he doesn't feel like it, or thinks he doesn't have to treat people with dignity.  He's supposed to uphold standards.

And as for me, a softee (I suppose), I feel that an Army Chief of Staff who lost his foot in Vietnam, yet overcame that and rose to the highest ranks of the Army, should be immune from being verbally batted around like some beach ball, and in general disrespected.  As a junior Army field grade officer, that's what I sense happened to GEN Eric Shinseki.  And I (and many others) resent it.

(OH, BTW, Shinseki is the one who started the Stryker combat vehicle program.  That's a critical component of Army "transformation").

The generals are concerned about the impact of an adventurous & warlike foreign policy on the Army and Marine forces that must, ultimately, carry out and complete it.

Navy cruise missiles and Air Force bombers can damage, even cripple a country.  But, once the aircraft fly away and the carriers sail over the horizon, it usually falls to soldiers and Marines to stay on the ground, clean up and do the work necessary to create a real "victory."  

I'll bet the generals share a concern of mine--our military is not currently crafted for a years-long counterinsurgency war.  And, once you "shock and awe" a country, what usually follows is a drawn-out counterinsurgency.  

If we "go after" Iran, we could have our THIRD long-term counterinsurgency on our hands (Iraq and Afghanistan being the other two). Are we willing to build an Army capable of fighting a years-long counterinsurgency?

Bear in mind, when today's Army units return from combat, they can never fully rest.  They KNOW they're going back.  A few months ago, the WSJ ran a story on soldiers and families at FT Riley KS.  For them, the specter of war is there every day. And, it changes the way one lives.

For all those who speak glibly about us "dealing" with Iran, let me remind you.  Our Army is made of citizen soldiers, not Janissaries.  Of course the Army will do what it's told.  But, frankly, we don't know what years and years and years of ongoing counterinsurgency war will do to our Army as an institution.  

In that respect, I sense that some of the displeasure being thrown at Rumsfeld stems from the concern that the DOD will not, or will be unable to, provide the Army and Marines the equipment and personnel it will need to go to and stay at war for the next 5-10 years.  While the rest of us put "Support the Troops" stickers on our cars, and move our lives and minds on to other things.

OK---this turned into more of a stream-of-consciousness rant that I would have liked.  But, I feel some of these things needed to be said.  I get the sense that many commentators want the generals to simply sit down and shut up.  Unfortunately for that point of view, they are private citizens, with the right to speak. A right they spent their entire lives fighting for.  (And we, of course have the right to fire back, as the Directors have here).

But we should also recognize that the Army and Marine generals are concerned about the long-term impacts of never-ending low-intensity war on our Army and Marine Corps instutions.  And, America does have a reputation (fairly or not) for having its attention wander to other things. If America's political attention and fiscal resources wander in the future to other things--e.g., Social Security reform, fixing Medicare, funding pensions and retirement benefits and the pork that we all know will never go away--many in the Army and Marines fear being stuck in an unresourced and forgotten series of mini-wars overseas.  

I fear that many of Task Force Smith's soldiers died as old men in North Korean prisons, forgotten by their country.  What went through their minds over all those years is, well, unthinkable.  But not as unthinkable as letting it happen again.  

full moon, eh?

Two trolls out of two posts.

Wow, looting happened in a war.

Wow, a victor dissolved a defeated army, rather than leaving them in place, forever a threat to return Hussein to power.  

Rumsfeld offered his resignation over the Abu Ghraib fiasco, even though it wasn't his doing, and was not anything like the horror it's being called.  

You always have the team you have, not the team you want.  

If Jesus Christ was on Earth today...do you really think he would a Republican???

No, but I bet he'd proofread his tagline. And use the subjunctive mood when appropriate.

Dude, is that a log in your eye?

Niether a Religious scholar nor an English Major... I think you got the jist.

As do I. NR editorial here.

The last week or so could be called "The Army's Revenge." There had been resentment toward Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld from the beginning over his attempts to transform the military into a lighter, more modern force. Against the backdrop of the difficulties in Iraq that have weakened the secretary, a handful of retired generals have been able to draw blood with their recent calls for Rumsfeld to step aside (four of them served in the Army, the other two in the Marines).

As a political matter, Rumsfeld's leaving at this moment, under this kind of fire, would play as an admission that the critics who say the Iraq war was fundamentally botched have been right all along. The White House realizes this, which is one reason President Bush made such a strong statement in support of Rumsfeld on Friday. That retired generals are criticizing a Defense secretary is not, per se, the threat to civil-military relations that some of Rumsfeld's defenders seem to think. Retired flag officers are citizens after all, and they're free to say whatever they want. But there is something unseemly about it, especially considering that most of them apparently kept conveniently quiet about their misgivings while in uniform.

Ironic that you displayed incompetency in trying to spell "incompetency".

but before you go, wikipedia defines conservatism as:

Conservatism [derivative of conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe] is a philosophy defined by Edmund Burke as "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve".

So, while Jesus would have been neither Republican nor Democrat SOLELY based on his purpose in life being to bring our Heavenly Father's message to ALL of HIS children, this superceding political (read selfish) pursuits, Jesus was by his words and his actions most assuredly Conservative.

And ask you to keep it to yourself in the future. that includes your tagline.

Thanks,

The Management.

"I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly."  How much more pro-life can you get than that?  So I'd say he certainly would not have been a member of the party of death.

is enough of a reason to replace him.

The President is having more trouble than normal building support for the war because Rumsfeld is so unpopular.  It doesn't matter, after a certain point, whether Rumsfeld is justly unpopular.  

and modernize the military has ticked off a lot of the brass.  They don't like or want the changes.

He also has a fairly abrasive attitude, which I am sure also doesn't rub the brass the right way.

I am sure Rumsfeld has smashed a lot of toes during his tenure-sometimes the toes deserved a good smashing, others maybe not, but overall I think the various generals demanding Rumsfeld's resignation sound like whiners.

Also, there is a reason we have civilian leadership of the military, if a bunch of retired generals get to decide who should and shouldn't be the SecDef-then we are going to flip that on its head, and end up giving the military far more power than it was designed to have.

We do not know all the details of how things declined among these generals (Neubold, for instance).  We can't fully judge the situation.  In the case of Neubold, his "eviscerated" comment was out of line, and he needed to be brought to heel.

I think it is also important to note that Generals Myers, Franks, and DeLong have all spoken in very positive terms about Rumsfeld.  All they did was work with him on the war on terror on a daily basis.  We're hearing no complaints from them.  Instead, it's largely praise.

There's a saying that I once heard from a sci-fi show: "Understanding is a three-edged sword - your side, their side, and the truth."  Let's keep that in mind vis-a-vis Rumsfeld.

Another trait of today's conservative movement is to stifle debate and keep the thought police handy.  I will change my tag since it has created such a stir.  My only message to those that participate in this Republican lovefest is that nothing can be more boring than having a conversation with people who all agree with each other.  Fear not those that see things different than you.  We are not the enemy in fact, we are probably your neighbors.... God Bless Free Speech and God Bless America!

Feel better now that you have that inanity off your chest? And have you bothered to figure out that this is a Republican website yet?

from haystack to tequila, er I mean cuervo:

Free speech is not free, and speech does not in it's freedom loving ways give you or anyone else the right to offend without being returned the favor

you can say what you want, we will reply in kind with the same level of freedom to disagree...and denigrate you as you have denigrated us.

see ya

The test is whether he's doing the right thing and providing solid leadership to the military. The military (as a whole) thinks he is, and more importantly the President thinks he is. Being unpopular with talking heads, in politics and the mainstream press doesn't make you wrong. It just makes you unpopular with the talking heads. I imagine 400 years ago Galileo was unpopular with the talking heads, but he wasn't wrong.

There's plenty of dissent to be found in the pages of RedState. Plenty of liberals who post here, too.

Dissent/debate is welcome here, even from liberals. Lefty Talking-Point-O-Matics™, however, are quickly shown the door.

ought to include a verb in each sentence.

To wit:

  If Jesus Christ was on Earth today...do you really think he would a Republican???

ought to say:

  If Jesus Christ were on Earth today, do you really think He would be a Republican?.

That question has at least two glaring logical flaws, given its theological underpinnings. (Note that using the title "Jesus Christ" rather than the name 'Jesus of Nazareth" indicates that it is about Jesus in His role as Messiah.  The question implies, at least rhetorically, His divinity.  Just so you know.)

The first glaring logical flaw is that we do not, to my knowledge, say that Jesus would have been a Republican.  Few if any Republicans, regardless of their faith, would have the raw arrogance to claim that the Christ would have belonged to their party.  To the extent that they claim the title Christian, they would know that He was above mere politics.  You are arguing against a phantom opposition.

The second glaring logical flaw is somewhat related to the first: it is you who is invoking His name for political purposes.  Shame on you, nail, for calling the hammer rusty.

The basic problem you are fighting is the false meme of the "American theocracy" (and that of the "vast right-wing conspiracy") so entrenched in leftist ideology.  Many on the right are driven to their political beliefs by religious conviction, just as are many on the left.  However, for both sides the tenets of their faith simply inform their politics, they don't dictate them.  On both sides we take our life experiences, our education, and our religion's viewpoint if any, mix them with own reasoning on these matters, and form a political outlook.  

As a result, I have yet to encounter anyone who has shared my opinion on every issue.  If there were a theocratic mechanism at work, I'd have met countless others who at least professed to hold to the party line.  

In short, I find your signature offensive.

that stifles debate is Campaign Finance Reform supported for the most part by Dems opposed by conservatives.

The only law on the books that regulates thought to my recollection is Hate Crimes Legislation which was first demagogued than supported by Dems and opposed by conservatives.

Can you provide an example of how conservatives stifle debate or employ thought police?  

I come not to denigrate.  Simply to engage.  Yes, of course this is a Rebuplican site.  Where better to engange in a discuss with people who see the world differently than you?  Your own tag says you are politically incorrect, I take that to mean you don't think much about how what you say may offend someone.  Well, I am politically incorrect here, no?  Why would that offend?  My overall message that if we were all more open minded, perhaps we would find  that there is more common ground than we think...or not.

PS. Note my tag line...I am looking for a new one, any suggestions?

to determine who should be in his Cabinet? We don't need a popularity contest. Rumsfeld is highly capable, despite what the alphabet lefties (CNN, ABC, etc.) say about him or the war. Follow this RedHot link to find out what field grade officers think about Rumsfeld.

The fact is that the left would vilify anyone whom the President would select. They vilified Ashcroft for being a devout Christian. The vilify Condoleezza for being conservative while black.

I don't see being encouraged to express your dissenting view cogently and respectfully as stifling but that's just me.

How about citing examples such as mine where expression of your opinion leads to stiff fines or being thrown in jail.  Isn't this the paranoid scenario that is discussed in leftist circles while passing the bong around?  Or do you guys really fear being banned at RedState?

Yours is one of the few replies that examines my poorly constructed question.  My overall point to that question is my belief that there are way too many people who use religion and Christ himself to reason views that I really think are against what he  believed himself.  Many who support the war in Iraq and our President in general consider themselves to be devout Christians.  I cannot see how a Christian can support President who as done what this one has.  There are too many examples to go into now but from the war to the treatment of prisoners to the response to Katrina to enviormental issues...this administration, in my limited and humble opinion is very un-Christlike (probably not correct wording either).  I do not know, I cannot know, I simply ask... thank you for your thoughtful response.

I have one:

Read my "I was banned at RedState diary" at http://

Bear in mind, when today's Army units return from combat, they can never fully rest

Compared to WWII, when they pretty much stayed in combat the whole time.

Also, I work with the wives of several National Guardsmen, and they were chatting about their husbands, and the general consensus was that their husbands were ready to go back-they didn't like being here, when soldiers were over there fighting.  To date no word on when/if their unit will be returning to Iraq, but at least three of them would go back right now, if they were asked.

I do think you make some good points as to why the generals do not trust a leaner/reorganized army that Rumsfeld invisions, but I also think a good bit of their opinions are whining.  I do suspect that Rumsfeld has happily smashed a lot of toes during his tenure-some of those toes probably didn't deserve to be smashed, but I am also willing to bet many of them did deserve it.

Each blog or discussion site has its own dynamics, its own ground rules.  Some are freewheeling, leet-speak, instant-messagey flamefests.  This site is almost a polar opposite to that.  

As a result, when someone shows up with TalkingPoints™ in hand and spouts them all to bolster a case, and does so without apparent diligence in constructing an argument, red flags go up.  We circle the wagons, sort of.

If you really want to play here, play by the rules. Tone it down.  Be patient, and be prepared to have every ill-founded assertion challenged.

In an environment like the military where abrasive personalities and stepping on toes have never been tolerated, his personality is a problem.

My son is a Marine.  He's never encountered an abrasive personality in the Corps.  He especially likes the marshmallow roasts with guitars and Pete Seeger songs.

think Jesus is a pacifist?

Why do you think it is arrogant to believe Jesus would support the war in Iraq, but not arrogant to be equally sure he wouldn't.

What scripture are you basing the pacifism on?  And do you believe Jesus would have opposed WWII?  Korea? How 'bout the US Civil War?

You are making a theological statement, but you aren't supporting your belief theologically anymore than those who believe Jesus would support the war.  Please back up your position with something more than opinion-or your opinion is no better or worse than anyone else's, it is just opinion.

OK.  But since this thread isn't about religion, I'll just take your word for that.

In the spirit of staying on topic, you know even less about military matters than religion.  Since this is your first day at RS, if you manage to make it to day two try to put just a tad of substance into your comments.  You'll find that a liberal who can take a position on an issue based on factual information is welcome here.  

You've created a small fire storm because you've disagreed with RS's position on Rumsfled.  You might want to go back and reread RS's statement.  It has some factual information in it.  There's a disucssion about why Rumsfeld was picked for the job.  There's some information about why the particular Generals might not like him.  There's discussion about the reasons RS supports Rumsfeld.

And then the best you can come up with in response is that Bush wants to reward incompetence.  With no reasoning for that conclusion.  I would suggest if that's the best you can do, you really should spend more time over at Kos.  They can't construct an argument either.

You say you came to engage.  Then engage.  Have some reasoning to go with your invective.  You've made no case about Rumsfeld.  I don't have a clue why you don't like the guy, other than he's a Bush appointee.

Based on the quality of your comments so far, you really should go back to your DNC Condi coloring book and leave informed discussion to the adults.

is is clear that you have hit upon at least part of the problem.

In any organization there are a number of people who resent working for a living and there is a larger number who resent change.

It is clear that the Clinton regime did violence to civilian control of the military (before anyone slips into you're-just-blaming-Clinton-again mode finish reading).

His history of draft evasion, his famous letter in which he claims to "loathe' the military, the battering he took because of his don't-ask-don't-tell, and the total putzes he appointed as SecDefs all conspired to remove most of the overall civilian control over the armed forces. Clinton was, I believe, really afraid to try to exert firm control and as a result he received contempt. His directives in regard to taking action against al Qaeda were either ignored or slow walked into oblivion.

Fortunately, for everyone, he never faced the crises facing us today.

So I think you have a substantial number of general officers who are chaffing at actually having to justify their decisions, they don't like the changes happening, they don't like the fact that Rumsfeld pulled Pete Schoomaker out retirement to be Army Chief of Staff, and they've decided they will get Rumsfeld before he gets them.

No arguement.  Rumsfeld is responsible for the many errors that have ocurred in the in Iraq.  His initial effort when he took the job was to create a smaller, lighter, faster fighting force.  He eliminated larger, bulkier weapons systems and began  an effort to transform the Army to what he considered the next generation of war.  Nothing wrong with any of that... you have a vision for your military and you take the initiative to transform.  The problem arose when he decided that his theory would be put to the test in Iraq.  The Powell Doctrine called for overwhelming force to destroy the enemy by pure brute force.  Rumsfeld took a different tact and decided that the Iraq war could be won using quick strikes and relatively small numbers.  That was a mistake that we are paying for now.  The numbers were not enought to seal the borders with iran and Syria allowing insurgents to come in and out.  Not enough troops to stop the initial looting which hurt our credibility and not enough troops contain cities like Faluja before the insurgency took hold.  Then came Abu Ghraib.  At the end of the day there needs to be accountability for the treatment of the inmates.  You cannot argue that this was "no big deal", it has obviously fueled the insurgency and hurt our efforts.  Shall I continue.  He must go...

You freely admit you're not a religious scholar.  You pick a religiously based, actually Christian based, tagline for the sole purpose of inflaming the masses.  Then you post in two diaries that have NOTHING to do with your tag.

You are challenged by RS regulars who I would guess know a whole lot more about Christianity than you do.  You are unable to defend your poor choice of wording other than to offer up the "I'm not an expert in theology..." defense.  

Now, you offer up the poorly constructed paragraph above.  You cite a group of secular, administrative issues with absolutely no biblical reference.  For instance,

• You seem to think that one cannot be a Christian and support the war in Iraq.  (Or would that be war in general, you're not clear.)  Yet you offer no scriptural basis for your claim.  You offer no argument that addresses the "Just War" doctrine.
  

• You mention "treatment of prisoners".  So what.  Please give specifics and include something that will show that the "treatment" you appear to be incensed about is because of the policy of the administration.  Also, include scriptural basis for an argument, since that is your position.
• Katrina.  Yeah, so what?  People built a city below sea level.  It flooded.  Emergency response could have been better.  Especially at the state and local level.  I'm reasonably well versed in new and old testament, I don't recall anything about this subject matter.  But I could be wrong.  Please provide references.

That's for starters.  I know nothing about the Koran, probably including how to spell it.  I would never go to a Muslim site and try to tell people what Mohammad would think or do.

If you want to make a point, make it based on something you know about.  You've totally missed the boat so far.

if the MSM gave as much attention to the piece in today's WSJ by two retired lt. generals and two retired major generals, all of whom are well known due to their current positions as military media consultants.  But I don't expect it to happen since these six generals they have chosen to exploit fit with their preconceptions of the war.  Someone needs to inform the MSM that six (or 10 or 20) generals out of the more than 7,000 retired generals and flag officers hardly constitutes a consensus.  To cave in to these demands for Rumsfeld's removal is just what the enemy is waiting for.  It would signify the beginning of the end not only for this noble cause in Iraq, but also for U.S. efforts in dealing with other rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea.

who live for a long time with permissive parents, but then the parents decide to crack down, and the chafe even more, for the lack of guidance before.

I do think that Clinton didn't do much at all to stengthen or help our militar, and the generals in charge now were all in and moving up under Clinton-they got used to being in charge, much like the child of a permissive parent does.

See what I mean.  This is the meat of the arguement that I am looking for.  Am I to take it then, that you do believe that Christ would be OK with this Administration and what has happened since they took office?  Of course it is my opnion and only my opinion.   Anyone can dismiss my opinion as being without merit because I do not have the religious education to back it, but is that really the point?  Was Jesus a pacifist?  I do not know, do you?  I think he would see the difference between just wars and unjust wars.  Moral wars and immoral wars. I do not pretend to know what Jesus would say or do about what is happening in the world today but I cannot help believe based on what I was taught that he would be none too happy with the guys in charge of the White House, heh...

But this situation really has nothing to do with Bill's tenure.  It's a matter of entrenched, old line managers who grew up in an organization and don't want it changed.

The organization of the Army has a lot in common with General Motors.  It's, in my anything but humble opinion, bloated, top heavy and intractable.  The politics of the organization focus not on the mission of the organization, but on the history of the organization.  It's really inconvenient to look around and realize that the organization was designed to fight an enemy that, by and large, doesn't exist anymore.

Rumsfeld comes on the scene and says, "Hey, the world's changed.  We need to change to be able to meet a different threat."  That makes him the enemy to people who are perfectly happy being ready to fight the Russians.  Intractable management fights the changes and loses.  

They can't win their battle internally, so they take the battle to the press to erode Rumsfeld's authority.  The battle now changes from "this is why we need this great big artillery piece that can't be moved but will fire ordinance way into the next time zone..." (a military argument) to "Rumsfeld doesn't build teams, his management style is abrasive..." (civilian arguments)

I'm guessing "this too shall pass" because sooner or later the press, who are the guys really driving the story, will find a real story to report.  That, and some crusty old combat hardened Col will finally blow somebodies doors off in real time.

is enough. You've used up too many electrons already expounding on this. Do it elsewhere.

You know nothing about the military.  You have your Time Magazine talking points down pat.  Powell good, Rumsfeld bad.

As a matter of fact, the "Rumsfeld doctrine" worked extraordinarily well in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  21 days to Baghdad is an incredible feat.  You might recall that in both campaigns your side was screaming from the first day that we were bogged down in a quagmire.  The Afghans would do to us what they did to the English and the Russians.  We would never get thru the Republican Guard in Iraq.

Well oh gee, the military victories were overwhelming.  We are now in the build a country mode.  Germany and Japan were run by the US military for 5+ years before they even started to form governments.  Iraq will get the job done.  Has it been messy?  You bet.  Could some things have worked out better?  Probably.

Please note that one of the biggest whiners here is the General who was in charge of training Iraqi troops.  He failed.  He was replaced by a General who has been quite successful.

Abu Ghraib is a joke.  If you are going to make accusations of torture, you have absolutely no idea of what the real world is.  Torture happened when Saddam ran the place.  Were the prisoners mistreated?  Yeah.  The Army discovered it.  The Army publicised it.  The Army investigated it.  The Army prosecuted the guilty and they are doing time in prison.  Find a new horse to beat, that one was dead on day one.

AG "fueled the insurgency" because of the NYT, the Congressional Democrats and idiots like you who are totally clueless.  And who will grasp at any straw to help the insurgency kill our people.  Don't bother to go on.  You're an ignorant fool.  Go to Pennsylvania and help John Murtha get reelected, you're two peas in a pod.

If a Secretary is truly unpopular - let's say he has the approval of only 30% of the population - he can impede the President from gaining broad support for defense policies.

Or do you really want to argue that popular support doesn't matter in politics?  

You don't "know" anything.  You have opinions formed in the fever swamp.  Use your time wisely.  Go attend a Cindy Sheehan rally.

We should run with this!

I think the left should be concerned as to what horses they are putting their money on in this race. As I read the news articles I couldn't help but think that the left should be THANKING Rummy. These generals seem to be complaining about Rummys micromanagement and that he is tying their hands. The left is trying to turn that into "generals oppose war".

It seems to me that if the generals had their way they would accomplish their mission in a way that the left would be none too happy with (in their pursuit of a "nice" war). That's what I read in batiste's comment:  "I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is"

Even Mr. Cuervo here seems to be saying that Rumsfeld hasnt used enough force in this campaign. We need to be more ruthless.

For whatever reason Rumsfeld is standing in the way of that. Whether it is because of difference of management style or pressure from the left not to have a "mean" war, it would go hand in hand with their actual goals.

Your mom is a baboon, please prove that she is not.

I think there's more to this, mbecker--what caught my attention about the Clinton connection was Wes Clark's insertion of himself into this situation--these generals are Clinton era generals and Clark is one of their top men--if we want to know who they want in charge and to get a preview of how that Secretary would act, look no further than Clark.

It's just a side observation, but perhaps a barometer of how far to the Left some people in academia went after the 2000 election:  my former boss tried to convince me that Wesley Clark should have been in prison on war crimes convictions for his role in Vietnam, instead of running for President.  No joke.  

Nobody on the Left talks about that now, because Michael Moore and one of my friends made Wes Clark their preferred candidate, but it was a relatively uncontroversial statement among certain Law School deans only a few years ago...

I think we should reprise that and bring Wes Clark up on war crimes charges now.  After all, many Liberaleftists thought he should have been charged then, so why not now?

While it's true they are "Clinton Era" Generals, I really don't believe their animosity has much to do with Bill.  These guys learned their trade under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and now Bush2.  

If you look at the civilian leadership they've experienced, it runs the gamut from micromanaging tactics and undercutting the military leadership (LBJ & Carter), to marginal support (Nixon), to benign indifference (Ford - he had bigger fish to fry), to support and appreciation (Reagan & Bush1), to indifference and disrespect (Clinton) to transformation (Bush2).  The only constant in the equation is the Army, or in the case of Zinni and Newbold, the Corps.

In a rational world, one would think that Generals would love Bush2.  They get to fight wars.  They get to do so with, apparently, limited interference from the civilians.  Generals are either warriors or they are politicians.  Eisenhower is probably the only one in my lifetime who was both.  MacArthur and Billy Mitchell were both geniuses as warriors and complete fools as politicians.  Then there was Patton...  You probably get my drift.

Anyway, people in general are resistant to change.  Even with the "good stuff" that Bush2 brings to the table for Generals, he brings change on an order not seen since the mounted cavalry gave way to armour.  Or maybe the introduction of air power.  These guys all grew up in command of a "million + man Army" that focused on armour and heavy artillery.  That was necessary to fight the Soviets.  The Soviets don't exist anymore.  Neither does the need for an Army that is ONLY heavy and big.

These guys all grew up with the "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force.  You could say the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" might be defined as "overwhelming speed".  It would appear that the model for the Rumsfeld military might be something that looks more like a Marine Expeditionary Unit that can be anywhere in the world with lethal force in 24 to 48 hours.  The "heavy" Army could be anywhere in the world in four to six months.  But they were not designed to be moved quickly from the German/Russian border, either.

All that is why I really think that it's the transformation from "Powell" to "Rumsfeld" that is driving the criticism.  At the end of the day it mostly centers around, "We wouldn't have all these problems in Iraq if we had just put more boots on the ground."  

And I get back, finally, to why I think Clinton wasn't an issue.  These guys loyalty (with the possible exception of Wes Clark who is just a politician and a flake) was to the Army, not the former President.

...but what's a jist?

Something tells me we could keep this up as long as you keep replying....

So, who made more "peace" in WWII, Neville Chamberlain or Harry S Truman?

True peace goes deeper than merely avoiding conflict. We also have an obligation as Christians to oppose the forces of darkness, tyranny and oppression wherever we confront them.

Because it was there:

We don't need a popularity contest.

SecDef's job is to run the military, not win the popularity of the people.

To reiterate, no, I don't think that if a Secretary is the target of a somewhat effective propaganda campaign by the MSM, he should be removed.

Leave politics to the politicans. Cabinet members are appointed, not elected. It's actually more the President's responsibility to garner the public support (in opposition to the efforts of the media, if he has an R by his name).

"What would Jesus do?" is only said by those who haven't a clue about Christ's reason for being yet want to use his persona to argue their empty, temporal philosophies. The only thing that you stated that has any grasp of reality is describing your opinion as "limited". I would suggest that the term is generally applicable to most of your views. Study the Bible and then you may understand how offensive are your comments concerning what would Jesus do and who Christians should support.

Phew, you really know how to frighten a guy, huh!

Personally, I'm a big Rumsfeld fan, a very big admirer of both his accomplishments and his style. But even if I weren't, thanks to the Bush-Rumsfeld bashers, he'd need to stay on at least until the air is left to clear.

Meanwhile, Rummy for EMPORER!

And, many of the questions the generals raise, they don't seem to have good answers for.

• Was the President, for example, supposed to coexist with a psycopath running Iraq?  One who we'd have to presume would eventually possess some form of WMD?
  
• If we needed more troops in Iraq, from where were we supposed to get them?  Once you counted in the need to have one-third of our total force structure in preparation for deployment, one-third on deployment, and the last third recovering from deployment--what troops did we still have sitting around?
  
• What worthwhile (in terms of modern warfighting ability) were ready and willing to join us, IF ONLY Rummy hadn't insulted them?

All the concerns I raised here are secondary to the mission at hand.  They touch more on concerns for the future.  Rumsfeld's modernization is creating an Army that's more dependent on external support for not only success on the battlefield, but survival as well.  If we fall short in providing that support somewhere in the future (as America might easily do), some poor soldier and/or Marine might easily find himself isolated, and thus doomed. In that respect, the Rumsfeld modernization opens the Army to more peril.

It may not come to pass.  But it has in the past, with heartbreaking results.    

It's the President's job to take care of his popularity, as you wrote.  Exactly.  Hence, sometimes he will have to replace his secretaries because they are dragging down his popularity too much.

If the choices were, Rumsfeld or keeping our majorities in the house and senate, what would the position of the directors of RedState?

My position would be "luv you dude, but don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Iraq did not go as planned.  The war is unpopular.  The war is a bloody millstone around our neck.   If someone has to take a bullet should it be Rummy or POTUS?  If I get a vote, "luv you dude...."

There are those who would say "Neither!!"  And if the politics of the situation works out, we may get away with "neither".  But if the "stars keep falling" on this administration and additional generals go public...."luv you dude...."

For those of us who think the current SecDef is the best thing since sliced bread, whose to argue.  Remember we are talking about the politics of keeping majorities.  The man stayed too long.  He should have cleared the field to give 43 running room.  Life with a democratic house will be painful, "luv you dude.."

Our hope now, and it is hopefully a well placed hope, is that Rove can contain the revolt of the generals, then as a famous Prizzi once said, " once you remove the rock from my shoe, the wind will stop blowing."

but GENs Newbold (JCS J3) and Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff) worked pretty closely with him, too. At least as close as Franks and DeLong, who communicated mostly via secure phone and VTC.

For the third and final time, no. I don't agree that the SecDef should be canned because he can't win a popularity contest. SecDef doesn't have to win elections All he has to do is run the military the way the President wants him to. And this one does, very well, thank you, regardless of what the MSM reports.

Obviously you think, otherwise. The only thing we appear to agree on is that Rumsfeld isn't all that popular with the public. Your solution is to send him packing. The President's solution seems to be to let the man do his job, and the heck with what the MSM says.

I'd like to see the President defend Rumsfeld a little more in public. Apparently he doesn't see the need to. But firing Rumsfeld solely on the basis of poll results would be idiotic. More like something Clinton would have done, not W.

thought that Secretaries should be elected, your point would have one. As it is, both you and it share an obvious and unfortunate similarity.

who have trouble reasoning.

After all, you seem to think that the assertion "We don't need a popularity contest" is actually an argument.

As for "idiotic", I'd say that idiotic is sticking with Rumsfeld because you personally happen to like him when he's crippling the President in carrying out his foreign policy.

Many thanks

...let us not spoil this lovely spring morning; everybody recalibrate their spleen output.

than this:

If you are going to make accusations of torture, you have absolutely no idea of what the real world is.  Torture happened when Saddam ran the place.

Because what it does is lower what was American moral supremacy down to a tit-for-tat status with Saddam!

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because I know this may be enraging (God knows, it is to me), but the military did not go public with the Abu Gharib until the Taguba report was leaked.  Which is a whole different kettle of fish.

For the record, it's the New Yorker, not the NYTimes, you should be raging at - they ran the story in most detail, along with CBS's 60 Minutes.    

Okay, let the slings and arrows rain down now! 8-)

You stated:

At a certain point, the unpopularity of Rumsfeld is enough of a reason to replace him.

RBMN responded:

The test is whether he's doing the right thing and providing solid leadership to the military. The military (as a whole) thinks he is, and more importantly the President thinks he is. Being unpopular with talking heads, in politics and the mainstream press doesn't make you wrong. It just makes you unpopular with the talking heads.

Not the response you had hoped for, I know.

I responded:

Why should the President allow the left to determine who should be in his Cabinet? We don't need a popularity contest. Rumsfeld is highly capable, despite what the alphabet lefties (CNN, ABC, etc.) say about him or the war.

Both responses directly on point against your original statement. Again, not the responses you had hoped for. Sorry.

Skipping ahead, you said:

It's the President's job to take care of his popularity...  Hence, sometimes he will have to replace his secretaries because they are dragging down his popularity too much.

Go back to logic class, because your assertion doesn't follow.

Firing a Secretary solely on the basis of his unpopularity (in this case generated by the left) would weaken the administration and make it much harder for the President to get what he wants done.

You've already postulated that your hypothetical Secretary has done nothing wrong, he's just unpopular. I say, let him do his job, and let the President defend him, not fire him.

Back in 1776 the decision of the Continental Congress to declare independence was highly unpopular with a broad segment of the population. But many members of that Congress were swayed by the words of a Member of Parliament, Edmund Burke:

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.

and

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

In spite of its unpopularity at the time, many if not most Americans now think it was the right thing to do.

The popularity of a decision should not govern that decision.

It looks as if you think that Secretaries, because they are appointed, should enjoy a near-absolute independence from political considerations, akin to that of Justices and judges.  That is, so long as they are doing their job well, their level of popular support doesn't matter.  As far as I can tell, if Rumsfeld had no more than 1% support, you would not support his ouster on that ground because you believe that what matters is the merit of his performance, not public opinion.

I think that appointed officials of the Executive branch should not enjoy such independence, but should serve only insofar as they are useful to the President.  The President has the power to appoint and remove them, and the President cannot ignore the question of popular support.  If he loses too much, he becomes ineffective.  If a Secretary (never mind if it's Rumsfeld or anyone else in particular) becomes too unpopular so as to become a liability to the President, the President is justified in removing him.

(You are welcome to have the last word.  I don't have anything further to add to my argument.)

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/4/15/114837/873

because it does not lower our moral superiority by pointing out what real torture is. What happens when people are oblivious to the horrors of real torture is you get people like Dicky Durbin comparing turing off someone A/C to the Holocaust. THAT makes either the American people look like morons or their leaders.

As for the Abu Ghraib story, as far as I know, the military was already taking care of the problem 6 months before the pictures came out. The papers reported on it but it was a ho-hum story to them. Ahhh, but now they have naked men in dog collars!

Torture's bad.  Thanks for pointing that out.   It exists almost everywhere --- Sudan, Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkey, and yes, still in Iraq (note the ex-Bathists still killing Shiites) --- it's all over the place. But I'm talking about American exceptionalism.  

Dick Durban's an idiot, but it's not really germaine to an honest conversation about our American morality, and what it means to an American superpower.

And for the record,  it was three months before the Cent Com's initial internal investigation and the MSM picked up the story.

1. The only "standard" that could possibly proclaim the events at Abu Ghraib to be "torture" are those of John McCain, the Leadership of the Democratic Party and the ACLU.
   
   
2. AG was "torture" as defined by any of the international treaties to which we are signatory, not was it torture according to our statutes, both civilian and military.
   
   
3. AG constituted "mistreatment" of prisoners.
   
   
4. The military put out information on AG without photographs, announced that soldiers had been arrested and that an investigation was underway about 90 days before the pictures were released and the NY'er decided this was a big deal.  
   
   
5. The Taguba report was public information from day 1.  He testified in open session of a congressional committee.

And no, we don't need a more sophisticated argument than the above.  Anybody, repeat: ANYBODY, who thinks the US actions at AG or Gitmo are torture, are simply ignorant and stupid.  Please feel free to be offended if feel this way.  

The idea that the leadership of the Democratic Party and some segment of the US population - represented by the ACLU - would accuse the US military of torture and would expect that enemy detainees would be granted legal protection under either the Geneva Conventions or the US Constitution of so offensive I could spit.

This whole "crisis" was manufatured by the media and the Democratic left against the Bush administration and the military.  

He was out defending Rumsfeld today, just like I asked. Defending him rather strongly. Thanks, Mr. President.

1. Yeah, and Jesus.  I'm talking morality, not politics.
   
   
2. You're seriously telling me that we didn't commit torture at AG?  See comment 1 above.  That was torture according to my religious statues. Don't game ethics.
   
   
3. Since your point is a little redundant I'll expand on point 2 above: I'm not a dimwit. I recognize that torture may be an acceptable American practice in order to save lives: the famous ticking bomb scenario, no problem.  But the abuses at AG were not calculated to get crucial intelligence: they were round up.  This is quite different from, say, many of the detainees in GITMO.
   
   
4. Yes, 90 days is about 3 months.
   
   
5. The Taguba report (here it is) classified "secret", and it was completed on Feb. 26th. 2005, and published April 4th 2005. In March 20 2005 six soldiers were indicted because of its allegations.

I don't feel offended by your righteous blindness, I feel simultaneoulsy sorry for you, afraid for my children, and I want my party back. If you don't trust the MSM, or the outpouring of shock that most of the nation expressed when the story went public, read the link to the Taguba report.  It concludes that the organization and leadership of the military was ultimately at fault for the sadistic behavior.  I am Republican and for you to accuse me of being some sort of puppet of the ACLU is, well, typical of the shrill irrationality that has crept in to the conservative movement.  You're just being extreme, and will end up betraying conservative movement.

The abuse at AG was not torture, it was abuse by sadists who have been prosecuted and punished.

The inability of those who so condescendingly condemn America and pretend we approve of torture on the ignorant grounds you choose only show the lack of grounds.

Worried about your kids my rear.

I prefer to seek the truth with confidence.  This is torture.  AG, heartbreakingly, clearly qualifies.  

because Dick Durbin is not some putz nobody knows blogging in the middle of the day. He is some putz in Congress representing the United States.

Every time he and Kennedy and the rest make some moronic statement that our conduct and morality is on the same level as brutal dicatator it waters down the actual meaning, insults the victims of TRUE torture and weakens us as a country. They have effectively made people believe that what happened in AG is just as bad and we are evil.

It is evident in your comments. So no, I dont think you get it because there is a huge difference. But that's fine because you probably dont think I get it. C'est la vie. I dont condone what happened but that was an issue that has been resolved by the very same evil military machine that supposedly did it.

Even with the events in AG you can still hold this country as morally superior any day of the week.

Enjoy your life in the third dimension.  You should learn to hope that people out here in the real world continue to find your tinfoil fashion statements ridiculous.

"Google Web Definitions" of torture don't meet the standard of the international convention on torture or our statutory requirements.

You can take your party back.  As soon as that infamous right winger Dick Durbin decides to give it to you.

their experiences during their years-I think especially those who were in Vietnam certainly affects how they lead, during most of those years, they didn't have any power-they were still too far down the totem poles.  But they got power, and more influence while under Clinton, and if Clinton's civilian leadershp was lax, then they were most certainly going to rebel against more involved and controlling civilian leadership.

Back to my toddler description from above-a toddler whose parents let them do whatever they want, and gives in to every tantrum, is going to go through a major tantrum phase, when they decide to put a stop to it.  When a child gets too much leash, they will rebel, if that leash is tightened-the same principle may be at work to some degree here.

of posting.  The five day waiting period must have driven you crazy.  That probably qualifies as "torture" too.

Go tell the DU folks you've set us straight.

check out her previous comments. You have to look at them all in context to see the usual conservative in the mist.

She is as republican as Cindy Sheehan.

I think we came to the same conclusion at the same time :)

welcome to post, you are not welcome to troll or moby.

I don't think anyone believes you are a conservative so why don't you just give up the charade and post?

You hate the UN, but you accept its definition of the NOTION of torture against all others, even a Christian one?    

but fooling only maybe yourself.

If it was torture, you would not have heard of it and the perps would not have been prosecuted by the military.

But you knew that, didn;t you?

and that of the criminal left, that what happened at Abu Grahib is simply nonsense.

Words have meaning and value. The problem with applying the word torture to that is that it seriously degrades the meaning of "torture." Similarly the way the left and the press toss around "war crimes" and "attrocies" renders those words meaningless.

Babi Yar was a "attrocity." Auschwitz was a "war crime." Pol Pot was a "war criminal." Labeling what happened at Abu Grahib as torture risks reducing Bergen-Belsen to the level of a fraternity prank.

Words have meaning and value and when you squander that value you no longer have a way to talk about true "torture" and "attrocities."

Please.  That's in the same theological treatise as the Christian definition of global warming, right?

Or I'm gonna have to go on bloodpressure medication.

:>)

A calculated genocidal effort to end a particular human race through controlled breeding, such as what happened in Rwanda, is rape.

A single woman who is once in her life just randomly raped is also rape.

One is way worse than the other. That's true. But both are wrong, and we should have the cojones to just stop it and not try to pull some kind of Clintonian legal escape act.

It's just so sad that you'd determine that I'm a troll simply because I don't preach the stepford wives line on this.  You're not a conservative thinker, you're a just robot. I bet you're a dittohead, too.

The mask slipped.

Blam.

You said exactly what I was stumbling around trying to say, but much more eloquently!

"Rummy, you're doin a heck of a job"

Without doing the research, my opinion is that, since the early years of the Republic, we haven't had as talented a foursome of President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State as the four currently in office.  

It may well be that Donald Rumsfeld is the most talented of the four.  He has done a magnificent job as Secretary of Defense; those who deny that are mere gnats circling a giant.

He, in my opinion, also has the most difficult job.

He was just a grunt in vietnam. Or do I not know my wes clark history?

That Reagan post?  Excellent camoflauge.  But you were just a little too off-key with the 'Iraz' thing, so I had to check further, found the fairness in media bit... and, oh, yes, we've got your IP on our banned list.

Congratulations; this is A+ work for a moby.  Here's your reward:

Blam.

I think we're overanalyzing the situation.  It isn't that complicated.  As Rummy said, out of 8,000 or so retired General and Flag officers, there are bound to be some who have decided to disagree with him.  Maybe some have done so with ulterior motives, or maybe they have always disagreed.

Either way, the law of large numbers guarantees they  are bound to exist.  All it took was for one catalyst among them to call for others to speak up, and speak they did.  All the speculation about their backgrounds may be accurate enough, and it may be the difference that has caused these particular Generals to publicly embarrass themselves and their peers, but it's just peripheral.

When you look at the quality of their arguments, it just isn't there.  That leads me to believe they all may be auditioning for Undersecretay of Defense positions, as quality of reasoning never enters into the equation in a Democrat administration.  After all, the Dems now seem to be advocating a Government run by the Military.  Imagine that!

our military yet further than it had already been reduced in the 1990's.

If we had followed his advice, our military would be stretched even more thinly than it is.

As far as I can tell, he has yet to push for expanding the military.  I'm pro-war and pro-military, but if we're serious about defeating Islamic radicalism, we need a bigger military.  In this situation, it's the Defense Secretary's duty to urge the President to increase the military.  Perhaps Rumsfeld has been doing that in private, but I haven't heard anything at all from any sources indicating that he has.  On the contrary.

Rumsfeld has needed to be replaced for a long time, well before Abu Graib.

From an online article today by Kristol at www.weeklystandard.com

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

this go by as it is really just trolling.

Fact, on September 11 Rumsfeld had been in office 7 months. He was in the process of conducting a review of military requirements. He did not recommend cutting forces in 2001.

Fact, in October 2001 the Army had 481,000 now it has 492,000.

Fact, in October 2001 the Marines and 172,000  now they have 179,000.

Fact, you are hardly an authority on the duty of the Secretary of Defense.

"What would Ronald Reagan Do?"

But maybe "What would Rummy Do?" is even better.

Now this is torture!

"Are we saying that, if a general disagrees with the SECDEF, they deserve to be personally treated as trash?  Is that the standard we as Republicans want to set? And, what's wrong with expecting the Secretary of Defense to treat his subordinates with some basic level of respect?  Who cares if he doesn't feel like it, or thinks he doesn't have to treat people with dignity.  He's  supposed  to uphold standards."

Who is trashing whom?

Who says Rumsfeld doesn't treat his subordinates with respect?  Not General Delong.

Treat people with dignity?  He's even civil to the idiots in the press corps.

If a General disagrees with the SecDef, he should make the disagreement known while he's on active duty.  Even MacArthur recognized that, and he wasn't just dealing with the SecDef.  Out of uniform, a General still owes allegience to the men he leaves behind, and he doesn't serve them well by undercutting their leaders during a war, especially without providing an alternative future.  The right time for dissents that just criticise old decisions is during a political campaign.

Let's get real.  These guys are after Bush's head; Rummy would only be collateral damage.

I was confident somebody would answer with alacrity.

I'm a troll.

And so are all those wacky left-wingers over at the Weekly Standard.

Streiff, you should look at your numbers again.  Are you saying that an increase of around 10,000 men in the Army represents the necessary increase to fight the new war we're in (and I mean the whole war, Afghanistan, Iraq, other operations, and future wars)?  That's an increase of 2% maybe?  

As for your point that Rumsfeld never proposed troop reductions, take a look at this article by Robert Kagan from July of 2001:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=01
-F_58

The proposed military budget of 2001 wasn't enough without cuts in troop levels.  From the article: "Rumsfeld's top adviser, Stephen Cambone, has bluntly warned the Army that it will lose two or more divisions under the new budget."

that our military has been adequately increased?

that Rumsfeld is the best Secretary of Defense that we've had in years, possibly forever.  

I also know that simplistic arguments such as the ones you made are just that, simplistic, even if you were factually accurate, which it seems you weren't.

Besides, I like Rumsfeld.

simplistic without ever showing why it is so.  Frankly, it's... simplistic.

Take a look at my posts just below this, including the excerpt from the Weekly Standard.  

That Wes Clark could have risen through the ranks after having been a "grunt" in Vietnam was enough for the people I knew to insist that he should be indicted on war crimes charges.  And that came from the Dean of a law school.

People sometimes don't recognize the depth of the intergenerational hatred we're talking about here, but I know it firsthand.

I will accuse you of being clueless.

When Cohen was SecDef, he slashed the number of Army Divisions but did not change the structure of the force.  It was built around heavy armor and heavy artillery.  The Crusader was developed on Cohen's watch.  There was no focus on SpOps.

Enter Rummy.  He changed the FORCE STRUCTURE from reliance on heavy armour to a focus on special forces.  Creating a more mobile Army.  That is a HUGE undertaking, infinitely more difficult, both militarily and politically, than slashing a few divisions as Cohen did.

The book is still open and will be for years to come on the success or failure of Rumsfeld's efforts.  Right now, I'd say the probability is that he will be remembered as the best SecDef ever, and his work will ensure that our military is the most potent fighting force on earth.

Assuming, of course, that we can keep the Democrats away from it.

Simply put, yes.  There are occasions when a comment doesn't merit much time spent in reply.

Since you insist, here:

"I'm pro-war and pro-military, but if we're serious about defeating Islamic radicalism, we need a bigger military.  In this situation, it's the Defense Secretary's duty to urge the President to increase the military.  Perhaps Rumsfeld has been doing that in private, but I haven't heard anything at all from any sources indicating that he has."

That is simply an assertion.  You may believe it, but the fact is there are other ways to defeat an enemy other than to just have more men on the ground.  So, your assertion is simplistic, as in "tending to oversimplify something, especially by avoiding or ignoring its complexities."  Besides, as you admit, your beef in the end is with the President, as he makes the final decision in a case like this.

I skimmed the article and read the quote.  Suffice to say, I disagree.  I'm aware of Kristol's opinion, as I am aware of Fred Barnes's plan of shuffling in Condi Rice to replace Dick Cheney as VP, etc.  I forget the rest of his chain of recommended changes.  Maybe they end up with Rummy as Sec'y of State and Cheney in at Defense.  (Just kidding.)  

That idea suffers from being a good example of Democrat thinking--people have no value except as a means to win elections.  We had eight years of a President whose administration was filled with unremarkable, interchangeable ciphers.  Thankfully, Bush appreciates people for their talents, not for their PR value.  That may hurt him in the press, but it should endear him to Conservatives.

I haven't heard of anyone who has demonstrated that we are prepared for our military challenges without substantial increases in troops.  Bush and Rumsfeld certainly have not, and yet the signs are clear that we don't have enough troops even for our present missions, much less future ones.  After all, we've been relying heavily on the National Guard, and we've been extending tours, etc.  And if North Korea invades South Korea, do we have any troops left to fight them?

You say that we can do other things than increase troop levels.  I'm sure we can and should.  The best thing about Rumsfeld is that he was looking into those ideas very seriously when he arrived in office.  

Nonetheless, I wouldn't call opposing Rumsfeld Clintonian.  I would call it Reaganesque.  Reagan was the last President to see the importance of having a robust military which could fight two major wars at the same time.  It was so important that he was willing to go into major debt to fulfill the goal.  That's the kind of pro-military policy I want.  We may need new weapons systems as much as or even more than we need more troops.  But we need both, and we need a Pres. AND a Secretary who is willing to do what is required instead of pretending that we have enough military resources.

I'm not advocating Cohen's method.  He was, of course, much worse than Rumsfeld.

I'm advocating Reagan's approach to the military - that is, do whatever is necessary to provide the military resources to win the war and prepare for future wars.  We're not doing that now.  Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Eliot Cohen, and many others have warned of this danger.

Are you seriously using this article as proof that Rumsfeld pushed for troop cuts? Either you didnt actually READ the article or are just hoping that nobody else does.

While the article is critical of Bush not spending enough, it clearly shows that Rumsfeld was pushing for more money, not less.

Even the whole conclusion of the article is "...while Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are hung out to dry."

you to toe a line. What will be required is that you don't blatantly lie to make a debating point.

You said the numbers have not increased. They have. The SecDef doesn't set troop strength, an arcane document called the Constitution gives that power to Congress. Right now the Army is in the process of adding 30,000 troops. I think the fact that they've added 10,000 in two years, while a war is going on, through voluntary enlistments is admirable.

As to sufficiency of the numbers, again I'd like to know what in your background to assert that the number is not sufficient because right now I think you are just blowing smoke.

Have you read Kagan's article. Because your interpretation of it is 180 degrees out.

According to administration sources, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked the White House last month for a $35 billion increase over the Clinton defense budget. The Office of Management and Budget sliced his request in half. This week Rumsfeld said he would need at least another $18 billion next year, but OMB has said he won't get more than $10 billion.

Even your own Cambone quote makes the point that Rumsfeld did not propose cutting troops. In fact, if you were cognizant at all during the 2001 debate on defense spending the reason troop cuts were mentioned as a billpayer was because the military had a lot of large ticket items they wanted to buy and they couldn't.

Bush's April 2001 budget submission for FY 2002 reflected a 3.8% increase in defense spending. Figure out for yourself if you really believe a 3.8% increase in spending in one year equates to troop cuts.

As to the Weekly Standard, you are welcome to read whatever you wish to read. But as a matter of due diligence you should actually read a few facts to go along with it and secondly, just because that is their opinion makes it neither serious nor correct.

me a liar, or a troll, or anything else?  We could have an honest disagreement and learn from each other.  I am a pro-military conservative, after all.

Take a look at the following letter from 2005 asking Congress for significant increases in the military.  It is signed by quite a number of serious conservatives, none of whom are trolls, or liars, or clueless.  They include: Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Reuel Marc Gerecht, and Joshua Muravchik, among many others.

If you don't like my summary of their point of view, at least educate yourself by taking their thoughts seriously:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

money.

We had 16 divisions under Reagan.  Now we have what - 10 at most?  The tiny increases in spending are such that we can hardly maintain that size of a military.

I am surprised that so many conservatives are willing to accept the burden we are putting on our military personnel, and, above all, the risk we are taking with our national security.  

No one has yet shown how our military resources are sufficient for present and future missions.  We talk about the mortal threat of radical Islam and the wars we must accept to defeat it, but we must be willing to create the military resources to meet the task.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

when the agitation in Congress for 30,000 more troops started I recall some of the JCS concerns about the move. The thing that bothered them was not that they had to recruit, train, equip and maintain new troops; the concern was that a few years down the road the Congress would get stingy again and stop spending the money to keep those troops fed, clothed, housed, trained, etc.

They would again be faced with too many people and not enough money to support them. My guess is tht if the Democrats control the House and the Whitehouse in 2009 you will see more Clintonian denigration of the troops and more cuts in defense spending.

It seems you are now moving the goalposts because you got caught. You were expressly claiming that Rumsfeld was cutting military spending:

"Before 9/11, he was pushing to reduce"

"he has yet to push for expanding the military"

"it's the Defense Secretary's duty to urge the President to increase the military... I haven't heard anything at all from any sources indicating that he has.  On the contrary."

"As for your point that Rumsfeld never proposed troop reductions, take a look at this..."

You even go further to be disingenuous by the selection of the only quote from the article you linked:

"Rumsfeld's top adviser, Stephen Cambone, has bluntly warned the Army that it will lose two or more divisions under the new budget."

the problem is you fail to mention it not for the lack of effort on his part, he was just being the bearer of bad news. That is just a bad tactic I would expect from the New York Times.

Are you a democrat? Only a democrat could take an increase in spending and call it a cut? Listen, I dont disagree with you that our military needs ample funding but you need to be honest in your portrayal of the players on the stage.

and why the JCS cannot always be trusted to plan our policy.

Good point.

So, what would Reagan do?

Of course, we can disagree about the best policy for our military.  But there are many conservatives who believe that we must do much more to make our goals attainable.

Neither was Reagan, and he would never have stood for keeping our military so small when it is engaged in two countries and when the prospect of further major engagements looms.

The point is that if we increase military spending so little that we cannot maintain, much less increase, our troop levels, that is a reduction.

Wouldnt have called an increase, no matter how small, a cut, nor blamed the person trying to correct that.

But nice backpaddle. :-)

I didn't say or imply that it is Clintonian to oppose Rumsfeld.

I said Clinton's "administration was filled with unremarkable, interchangeable ciphers."  Since he had so little talent in his Cabinet (IMHO, Robert Rubin was far, far, far, from being the best Treasury head since Hamilton), it made no difference who left or who the replacement was.  Bush, in contrast, has a Cabinet with the top positions filled with the most talented and knowledgeable people in their field.  OK, Treasury Secretary John Snow (who could easily be improved on by Lawrence Kudlow or Phil Gramm) wouldn't be missed, but it's hard for me to say who could replace Rummy or Rice without being a step down, at least.

I recently heard that at least one branch of the service is increasing its recruitment goals.  Since some of those goals have been missed in recent months, that seems like a good sign.

Yet, if the goals have been missed, how do you propose to quickly increase the size of the overall military?  Higher pay?  Better benefits?  A draft?  The nitwits in my town don't even want to have Junior ROTC offerred in our schools.

there are a number of ways to increase recruitment.

One way, and perhaps the most important, is for the President and other leaders to declare that there is a need for young men and women to serve their country in the military.  That would draw quite a few, I think.  

If it was the Army which had trouble meeting its recruitment goals, perhaps it should change its focus from advertising benefits to challenging citizens to serve the nation and become a good soldier / officer (the Marines, with their "We're Looking for a Few Good Men", has never had trouble meeting recruitment goals, as far as I know).

Apart from that, which is off the top of my head, I don't have a full recruitment program to propose.  But I'm sure others who have thought about it more could make further suggestions.

exceed their recruiting goals, their standards are higher and most recruiters actually try to paint a fairly brutal picture of what it takes to become a Marine.

Last time I went by the recruiting office my son went through, they were booked with with recruits scheduled for boot camp 9 months out.  The Recruiter was upset because he didn't beel like he was book far enough out.

I'm a student at a southern law school, and we have a JAG school on campus.  Not a single person complains, including the most left-wing liberals.  There is a wide-spread sense of decency and patriotism in the South, which is a large benefit of attending school there.  The northeasterners and left-coasters have an insanely anti-military view, and I was gratified to see Harvard put in its place recently on this issue.

My undergraduate college, in Vermont, had no program, and it should have.  Even after 9/11, it has none.  It's the old "babykiller" mindset, which endures even in the face of a threat like Al Quaeda.  I sincerely believe we will not see these anti-ROTC policies overturned until after the Vietnam generation dies off.  (And that may not be enough to do it.)

Won't do it, they are raising a replacement generation even as we speak, maybe even more leftist, more virulent than they are.

But I am holding onto the slender hope that the new barbarians won't be as numerous, despite their ferocity.  After all, the anti-Vietnam extremists took over half the country.  The extreme leftists don't have nearly that influence, although they still retain a strong hold on many members of the Democratic Party.  And the country as a whole, even if it ends up turning against the Iraq War decisively, is simply not open to the crazy anti-American, anti-family, neo-Marxist and postmodernist views of the Far Left.  True conservatives (in the Coolidge style) may never regain a majority in this country, but they will always have more influence than the Far Left, because conservatives celebrate American principles and customs whereas the Far Left wants to overthrow them.

 

as they hold sway over the Democratic Party, and they do, they have effective control over the press since it follows the party --- so they don't need a majority.