Politics. Think about it: remove the boggieman and who do the Dems blame?

Now, had they been this clever with ANYTHING else...:rolleyes:

The timing was "brilliant" only by the standards of a dunce's academy.

Now, if Bush had fired Rumsfeld before the election, to take the momentum away from the liberals and remind everyone who is in charge and thwart the liberals etc etc - before he lost his party the House and the Senate - now that would have been kind of smart.

+1
If Pres Bush/ Mr Rove were that "brilliant", they should have put it to better use.


I read somewhere that Pres. Bush's nick-name for Rove is "turd blossum"!!!?? What the hell is up with that?

You know what the saddest part is bro?

I COULD write this stuff all day long, that's how badly the war was mishandled.

It is a god-damned national disgrace that seemingly, virtually every relevant political and military lesson we learned in Vietnam was completely forgotten between 1991, and now.

When the smoke cleared from OIF(Op Iraqi Freedom) our victory should have been as complete and convincing as ODS(Op Desert Storm) or OJC(Op Just Cause) were.

Of course the flip side of all that is that there is so much legitimate ground for criticism that it just drives me up the wall to see so many people repeat pet political mantras/talking points simply because they're either too stupid or too lazy to arm themselves with the facts.

If Colin Powell had run this war(or had it been run according to the doctrine which bears his name), OIF would be one of the greatest military victories in the history of mankind*.

But he didn't, and it's not... and now look at the mess we as a nation and a people have to clean up.

*(in some ways, from a strictly martial standpoint, it still has been a historic operation, with a lot of military firsts- some of which are quite impressive, but still nowhere even remotely close to the level that could've been achieved).
We have 'thus far' snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I said the same exact thing on my forum yesterday(but a lot less kindly)...

It simply boggles the mind.

Originally posted by island_dude
" With this administration, politics override all other considerations (such as competence and ethics). "

Apparently peoples memories only go back six years?

Anyone remember a place called Somalia, and a SecDef named Aspen?

A man who, against the specific request of the on-scene commander, denied US troops the heavy armored vehicles and AC-130H Specter Gunships that they'd requested to support our continuing Clinton ordered "Snatch and grab" operations of Aideed's top deputies?

That was done for "political considerations", and pulling out like cowards with our tails between our legs a mere week or so after some of our troops were drug around-dismembered- through the streets of Mogadishu was likewise a "political consideration."

It was also a g-damned national disgrace, and the one incident Osama Bin Laden has repeatedly pointed to as the very moment he knew that "The Us is weak and can be beaten."

The VERY THING that so many want us to do in Iraq is what convinced OBL to attack us to begin with.

As i've said for years, the only lesson history teaches is that man forgets all of histories lessons.

U don't find a replacement SOD overnight. Rummys immediate resignation was planned in the event of a loss. He probably was gona go anyway as part of the Baker recommendations.

Bush has said that the war in Iraq is being lost and he is open for suggestions. Bush has nothing left to protect politically, he has done his last rodeo. The Dems nolonger can potshot GW, they now have responsibity and have to get their hands dirty.

Everybody is counting on Baker and his plan...to get out easy...everybody wants Iraq to go away...cause it is such a hot potatoe.

Bush to Nancy..."U think U can do a better job on Iraq, here then U take it its yours..."

Removing Rumsfeld right before the election would not have changed a thing except to make the President appear weaker and grasping at straws....purely a political ploy and nothing more. The election was not about Rumsfeld....except for those residing at the dunce's academy.

Firing Rusmfeld was a sop to the Democrats, it changed nothing. The replacement is expected to be just like him.

Quote:

The election was not about Rumsfeld....except for those residing at the dunce's academy.

The election was about the whole neo-conservative cabal running the government.

So....

What does it say about the administration if their attitude is "Here; you are in power now, solve it!"?

Seems a strange way to run a railroad...

We just can't wait to finally hear about the Democrats' "plan" for Iraq that they have kept secret for 5 years.

That's where the word "railroaded" comes from...

OK. My turn to pi$$ everyone off, but oh-well. Even though he was just let go, I'm no more down on Rumsfield then I was before. And to be honest, there is a lot that I still like about him -- although he's far from perfect. But who isn't? But I'm enough of a realist to know that his time is up.

Personally, I don't lay the cause for the world situation on any one person's feet. A lot has been, and continues to be driven by politics.

1) Since the Vietnam war, big-time spending on the military just isn't politically possible. Nor are massive troop levels. All of those people who were anti-war demonstraters in the 60's and 70's are still out there, and just are not going to vote for politicians advocating increased defense spending. The demise of the the USSR further weakened any defense resolve since in many people's eyes they were the only threat to the US in the world.

2) It strikes me as a bit surreal when politicians (such as Pelosi) can successfully argue against even limited spending on purely defensive systems such as "Star Wars". There is not a single person in the world who could concievably be harmed by a "Star Wars" missle defense system unless they get hit on the head by falling debris from a destroyed incoming missle (such as Korea and Saddam Hussain have fired off in the past). It just shows how politically unpopular defense spending is.

3) Rumsfeld (and others before him) came into the SOD position knowing that old fashioned big-time spending on defense like in WWII or the Cold War days was just not an option. That was his charter -- make the armed forces more lethal while spending less money and using fewer people. Like turn-around "artists" in the business world, folks who can do this are NEVER popular. Everyone has a sacred cow, and outside the box thinkers like Rumsfeld (as well as T. Boone Pickens and other turn-around leaders) have to gore sacred cows by definition. It's a messy business.

4) Before people completely write off Iraq as a strategic failure, let's not forget that we actually removed two goepolitically unstable dictatorships when Saddam was toppled. It didn't make a lot of press, but Khaddafi saw the light and got on-side pretty quickly when he saw what happened to Saddam. If you didn't feel that Khaddafi was a threat, don't forget the 747 over Scotland, as well as I believe one cruise ship hijacking and the funding of a lot of other problems.

5) At the end of the day, the military doesn't "build" anything. I don't think that they ever have. Their job is essentially extermination of the enemy's ability to wage war. At some level, it's really no different the guy who comes to rid your house of bugs. It's a dirty job. I'm happy that I don't have to do it, but someone does and I'm very respectful of those people who do it. Our society needs people with the military's skills.

As far as grading Rumsfeld -- I'd have to say that I'd give him a passing grade. He did what he was paid to do -- which was to organize and lead the military so that it would be in a position to invade Iraq (or potentially Korea, etc) and dispose of the bad guys as cheaply, and with as small a force as possible. I don't think that the US can get Al Quida out of Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan any more then you can completely rid a house of roaches -- unless the Iraqis Afghanis and Pakistanis want Al Quida out of their countries.

I've no military experience, and I'm no politician. But I think the critical decisions in the Iraq war have still to be made. And it has less to do with what the US does as it does with what the elected Iraqi government does. The US has never been able to enforce (inflict?) long term security in a foreign country as far as I can remember. That can only be done by the people that country. We've been providing the Iraqi goverment with cover so that they have some breathing space to get their political house in order. If they want don't want to be run by Al Quida (which I suspect), they better start cutting deals with each other and taking a lead in running their own country.

It's like with my kids. I can tell them to not do stupid things. I can show them how not to do stupid things. I can screen their friends and have them watched. None of those things will work if my kids don't commit themselves to doing the right things, and not doing stupid things.

I think that the writing is on the wall for the Iraqis. Uncle Sam is going to be going home in the nearer (rather then far) future. We're not going to stay there to protect oil supplies or prop up goverments. They are going to need to step up and start to actively govern themselves if they want to live peaceful lives and make money from their oil, or they can just give themselves up to the next despot.

The decision is theirs...

Troop Levels and Rumsfield
 

Lendaddy,

Great questions. The field generals are now getting increased troop levels. Sniper also brought up SECDEFs "micromanaging" the war. If you recall awhile ago, 12 months, 18? I am not sure, but there was a big blow up generating form the pentagon that we needed an additional 30,000 troops right after SECDEF cut levels? Well those troops were provided and in my uninformed ignorance, I think that it may be more now but still not enough as others have stated. Coincidentally, there were major changes in at the Pentagon including the early retirement of the SECNAV, Admiral Clark and others. Word is that the flags and general officers were working on the SECDEF about how to execute the OPPLANS that others have alluded and the SECDEF did not like that. SECDEF is a smart guy (sorry sniper, I don't think he is a moron) but he can be to arrogant and strong headed. Although he has exhibited some of the traits that McNamarra had, Rumsfield does listen, but it takes time and many can get hurt in the interlude, i.e. Admiral Clark and others. This time to convince him allowed for the degradation of the situation, or in other words we didn't have time. UNLIKE McNamara, Rumsfield will change his mind, but it was too late. The nature of the man and the dynamics of the combat did not lend themselves to anything other that what has happened now, his resignation. He did not trust his generals and admirals and this is a fatal character flaw in the given situation.

I do not blame the president for the timing. The president was in an untenable political situation, the good ole damn*d if you do d$$med if you don't. President lost that one, he misjudged the American people and the results at the ballot box speak for themselves.

Seahawk
 

Seems to be the general consensus. Way tough and expects folks to adapt to his methods instead of trying to understand what the messenger is saying.

LOL

Yes, Yes, and Yes

Maybe so, but many who defended him also pointed out his shortcomings. We were just not willing to throw him to the dogs.

Great observation.

Wow
 

Very Well put, very good read. We need to come back to your observations in the future to see how accurate they may become. Thanks for sharing your well articulated theory, great food for thought.

DanB