Rumsfeld stepping down!

[jyl]

Originally posted by fintstone
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.

And removing him the day after the election doesn't seem like a political ploy and make the President look weaker? Get real.

Doing it before would have given him (Bush) a shot at blunting the Democratic momentum, doing it after is pure weakness. As someone said, he grossly misjudged the electorate's mood - a major political error. ( Admittedly, replacing Rumsfeld 1 day before the election would have been too late, would have had to do it in late summer.)

To those who say they were negative on Rumsfeld but withheld their criticism for some reason - why didn't you speak up? Afraid to speak your mind? Value loyalty over competence? Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon on the morning after?

To those who say the US won't support big spending on the military - look at the military spending over the past several years. How can it not be called "big"? The country is willing to spend on, and support, the military.

To those who say Rumsfeld was doing the right thing by making the military smaller and more lethal - theory is fine, but results are what count. When the Sec'y of Defense is so set on small/lethal that he won't commit the necessary mass of troops to do the job, that's a failure.

I've said for a long time (here) that we should greatly increase the number of US troops in Iraq, rather than try to pull US troops out. But in everything there is a window of opportunity; let it pass, and your options get bad. I am not sure that window remains open.

[fastpat]

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

Nonsense, Hillary has made it public for at least a year or more.

You'll love what she wants to do, more "stay the course"; i.e. more murder.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by jyl
...And removing him the day after the election doesn't seem like a political ploy and make the President look weaker? Get real.
...

No, it was brilliant and appears to be working well.

Originally posted by jyl
...To those who say they were negative on Rumsfeld but withheld their criticism for some reason - why didn't you speak up? Afraid to speak your mind? Value loyalty over competence? Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon on the morning after?
...

Actually, I think Rumsfeld was great. He was just give a problem that was not solvable with the tools he was given.

Originally posted by jyl
...To those who say the US won't support big spending on the military - look at the military spending over the past several years. How can it not be called "big"? The country is willing to spend on, and support, the military....

Spending has been relatively low by the only reasonable measure...as a percentage of GDP.

Originally posted by jyl
...To those who say Rumsfeld was doing the right thing by making the military smaller and more lethal - theory is fine, but results are what count. When the Sec'y of Defense is so set on small/lethal that he won't commit the necessary mass of troops to do the job, that's a failure....

Rumsfeld did not...and could not make the military either larger or smaller. Where do you get this stuff?

Originally posted by jyl
..I've said for a long time (here) that we should greatly increase the number of US troops in Iraq, rather than try to pull US troops out. But in everything there is a window of opportunity; let it pass, and your options get bad. I am not sure that window remains open.

The only problem is that you have never told us where the troops would come from. We already have the maximum that Congress will allow. You have decried military spending...what would we pay them with?...do you think the draft should be reinstated?

[Rearden]

Originally posted by jyl
To those who say Rumsfeld was doing the right thing by making the military smaller and more lethal - theory is fine, but results are what count. When the Sec'y of Defense is so set on small/lethal that he won't commit the necessary mass of troops to do the job, that's a failure.

Rumsfeld worked to transform the military (away from the Cold War structure) AND fight a few wars simulaneously with the military he inherited from Clinton. Remarkable, really.

[jyl]

Originally posted by fintstone
No, it was brilliant and appears to be working well.

I guess your rose-colored glasses are firmly glued on. You are probably working on an argument that Bush's loss of the House and Senate was equally "brilliant". I actually can't recall anything controversial he's done that you haven't proclaimed brilliant.

Actually, I think Rumsfeld was great. He was just give a problem that was not solvable with the tools he was given.

He helped create the problem that he then failed to solve. As Sec'y of Def, he was central to the decision and planning of the war.

Spending has been relatively low by the only reasonable measure...as a percentage of GDP.

Compared to the WWII and Cold War periods, you are correct. Of course, today there is no Germany or USSR competing with us for global military domination. The runner-up, China, spends 1/7th our level. But if we need to spend more, we can do so.

Rumsfeld did not...and could not make the military either larger or smaller. Where do you get this stuff?

Rumsfeld opposed efforts to increase the troop strength in Iraq, both in the initial invasion and throughout the occupation. He also opposed Congressional efforts to increase the authorized size of the military. He was worried that feeding 50K more soldiers would take money away from his high-tech programs. Background: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/p01s01-usmi.html

The only problem is that you have never told us where the troops would come from. We already have the maximum that Congress will allow. You have decried military spending...what would we pay them with?...do you think the draft should be reinstated?

Have I decried military spending? I don't see that.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by jyl
I guess your rose-colored glasses are firmly glued on. You are probably working on an argument that Bush's loss of the House and Senate was equally "brilliant". I actually can't recall anything controversial he's done that you haven't proclaimed brilliant...

So what exactly has he done that wasn't brilliant?

Originally posted by jyl
...He helped create the problem that he then failed to solve. As Sec'y of Def, he was central to the decision and planning of the war...

The war with Iraq and Afghanistan were both planned and executed brilliantly. It was not Rumsfeld's decision to stay in either country or to dissolve the Iraqi military after the war. Blame the State Department. They are the nation-builders that made the pottery barn decision and then, along with Paul Bremmer, completely dorked up the country. The liberal support of the terrorists in the US didn't help either.

Originally posted by jyl
...Compared to the WWII and Cold War periods, you are correct. Of course, today there is no Germany or USSR competing with us for global military domination. The runner-up, China, spends 1/7th our level. But if we need to spend more, we can do so...

Compared to anytime in the last 60 years, spending as a percentage od GDP is quite low...especially for wartime. Even as compared to recent periods such as as the previous (Clinton) administration. The cost of the global war on islamic extremism and terrorism is certainly necessary. As far as China...they already spend a greater percentage of GDP on defense than we do...and they are not even at war. The only reason we spend more is because we still have more (GDP) to spend.

Originally posted by jyl
...Rumsfeld opposed efforts to increase the troop strength in Iraq, both in the initial invasion and throughout the occupation. He also opposed Congressional efforts to increase the authorized size of the military. He was worried that feeding 50K more soldiers would take money away from his high-tech programs...

The simple fact is...there are no more troops to send.

Originally posted by jyl
...Have I decried military spending? I don't see that.

From your last post:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jyl
...To those who say the US won't support big spending on the military - look at the military spending over the past several years. How can it not be called "big"? The country is willing to spend on, and support, the military....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tabs]

Fint SPINS a good story...Bremmer reported to Rummy...and what did State have to do woth Iraq once it was under military rule...

Now it was Bremmer who sent the Baathist (Civil service) home and disbanded the Army....72 hours later the insurgency started. Bremmer did this all by himself with no help form anybody.

[fastpat]

Rumsfeld’s Legacy

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Like many in and out of uniform, I’ve often criticized the soon-to-be-former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.

Finally, just after the Democratic sweep in the 2006 mid-term elections, the long anticipated moment has come, and it is time to speak of Rumsfeld’s legacy.

Surprisingly, it isn’t the Iraq fiasco – this is the criminal legacy of neoconservative advisors in and out of the White House, pro-Likud factions in and out of government, the utterly spineless and incredibly stupid Congress in 2002, and the appalling non-investigatory investigative reporting of major U.S. news corporations.

While he certainly propagandized the 2003 invasion, and glossed over the facts on the ground, I think Rumsfeld was far more honest and forthright with the public and presumably his bosses than either deputy Secretary of Defense Paul "The war will cost $1.5 billion and be paid entirely from Iraqi oil revenues" Wolfowitz or his old friend Dick "Fire-Aim-Ready" Cheney.

Rumsfeld’s legacy will also not be the transformation of the Department of Defense, unless future U.S. historians carelessly use "transform" instead of the more accurate "demolish," "destroy," "demoralize, "defang" and "obliterate."

I remember in early 2001, many in the Pentagon hoped very much that Rumsfeld’s can-do attitude and political history would allow him to do what cautious cost-cutting of the Clinton years failed to do – shake up the military-industrial establishment towards faithful service in a truly post–Cold War world.

Instead, Rumsfeld did his part to ensure that neoconservative conspirers of the Reagan era, so comfortable fighting fake wars, playing overthrow-the-dictator games in vulnerable countries around the world, and offering fake security advice, could re-establish a new Cold War. The Bush War on Terror, while unsophisticated, illogical, and end-times-ish, has become a bellyfeeling and bank-account-filling New Cold War.

The Rumsfeld legacy will not be one of shame, even though we should be ashamed. When I heard that Saddam Hussein would be hanged soon, my first thought was how relieved Mr. Rumsfeld must be. In terms of real legacies, that famous Don-Saddam handshake and the secret deals the United States pushed and pursued in an effort to destabilize Iran in the 1980s are probably the most interesting. This dishonorable history is part of Rumsfeld’s most important legacy – that of the ultimate insider, playing the powerful hand of the world’s greatest democracy, in the name of American people who had absolutely no idea of what was happening.

When we think of Don Rumsfeld, we won’t really remember the Iraq fiasco, the destruction of both quality and confidence of the United States military, the purgings and the sparrings, or even the 100,000 and counting damaged bodies and souls of young Americans returning from a pointless and reasonless Iraqi occupation. They won’t name any of the great American bases in Iraq after Don Rumsfeld. He won’t get a carrier.

I think that we will best remember Don Rumsfeld for his succinct set of favored quotations, known as "Rumsfeld’s Rules."

The original version was prepared in 1974 – and one regrets that these nuggets of pith weren’t finalized then and there, that Rumsfeld had not been content to simply push artificial sweeteners through the FDA, and make boatloads of money.

There are many great quotes in "Rumsfeld’s Rules," and Rumsfeld aspired to apply them liberally.

I’ll point to two that seem pertinent today. Rumsfeld quotes General George Marshall, recalling that "If you get the objectives right, a lieutenant can write the strategy."

In a nutshell, this certainly explains our real problem in Iraq today, and tomorrow. We have misguided, venal, greedy, and idiotic objectives. This means that lieutenants can’t be counted on to write the strategy – and thus we fall back on those famous pseudo-sages at the American Enterprise Institute, and the graybeards of cowardice and intellectual sloth conjoined in the old Project for a New American Century. Don Rumsfeld doesn’t understand that the problem isn’t the strategy – he’d like to tweak and alter and experiment and stay on and on and on. The problem is the objective. Recognizing this early on, as General Marshall might have, would have constructed for Rumsfeld a powerful and grand legacy – but sadly, he was not up to that task.

And this is the rub – the Rumsfeld legacy is that he was simply not up to the task.

This failure may not spring from Rumsfeld’s own history or character. Instead, the reason for this legacy of failure is explained by another of "Rumsfeld’s Rules."

One page ten we find the quote: "Remember: A’s hire A’s and B’s hire C’s."

That George W. Bush is mediocrity made flesh is not questioned in any part of America or the world. Much like nearly forgotten FEMA Director Michael "heckuva job" Brown, and the forgettable Harriet Miers, Don Rumsfeld was – plain and simple – the hiring outcome of a bona fide "B."

And this, dear reader, is Rumsfeld’s pitiful and pathetic legacy.

November 11, 2006

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. ,a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for MilitaryWeek.com, hosted the call-in radio show American Forum, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com and Liberty and Power. A version of this article originally appeared on MilitaryWeek.com.

[cool_chick]

It's pretty bad when even the military papers call for his resignation.

Face the facts Fint, he sucked.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by tabs
Fint SPINS a good story...Bremmer reported to Rummy...and what did State have to do woth Iraq once it was under military rule...

Now it was Bremmer who sent the Baathist (Civil service) home and disbanded the Army....72 hours later the insurgency started. Bremmer did this all by himself with no help form anybody.

Bremmer reported to the President, not Rumsfeld. The Dept of Defense was all about fighting wars not building governments and peacekeeping, babysitting, or preventing the crazies from killing each other.
The military exits to kill people and break things. Once Iraq fell, it was up to others to decide how to proceed, not DoD. Rumsfeld had to work within the guidelines he was provided. The country is not and has never been under military rule.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
It's pretty bad when even the military papers call for his resignation.

Face the facts Fint, he sucked.

Sorry CC but you fell for the propaganda too. There are no "military papers" as the liberal media would have you believe. What you refer to are AF Times, Army Times, Navy Times, and Mirine Corps Times. All are basically the very same paper with different covers...and all carried the same piece and all are written and sold by Gannett....just another piece of the mass media trying to make a buck off GIs and push their own agenda. There is no input from the military and they do not reflect the opinions of military members.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
Sorry CC but you fell for the propaganda too. There are no "military papers" as the liberal media would have you believe. What you refer to are AF Times, Army Times, Navy Times, and Mirine Corps Times. All are basically the very same paper with different covers...and all carried the same piece and all are written and sold by Gannett....just another piece of the mass media trying to make a buck off GIs and push their own agenda. There is no input from the military and they do not reflect the opinions of military members.

LOL

*liberal propagand*

*liberal media*

ROTFLMAO

Prove they don't reflect the opinions of military members. ON the other hand, that doesn't matter. Prove it doesn't reflect the opinions of just about every goddamn general out there.

The dude sucked. Face it Fint. I'm sorry bud, but the dude really, really sucked BIG TIME.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
LOL
...Prove they don't reflect the opinions of military members. ON the other hand, that doesn't matter. Prove it doesn't reflect the opinions of just about every goddamn general out there...

Now that is silly. Obviously because an article is written in a newspaper that puts Army in the name doesn't in any way indicate it reflects the opinion of anyone but the author...certainly not that of the military as a whole. That is like saying and article in the New York Times reflects the view of all citizens of New York.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
Now that is silly. Obviously because an article is written in a newspaper that puts Army in the name doesn't in any way indicate it reflects the opinion of anyone but the author...certainly not that of the military as a whole. That is like saying and article in the New York Times reflects the view of all citizens of New York.

If it's "silly" to you, then why did you say it? You said it doesn't reflect the opinions of the military....even though through the years general after general after general stated same....WE NEED TROOPS AND NOW. Rummy KNEW what he had when he went in........so that's NO EXCUSE. That's like me saying I'm going to bake a cake, but I only have 1/4 cup flour, then crying victim because my cake sucked.

Your little "conspiracy" rants about *liberal* this and *liberal* that doesn't cover up the fact that Rummy sucked big time. I'm sorry Rumsfeld couldn't hide his suckiness any longer, but no one can when they suck. The bull***** doesn't work any longer, so maybe you should try another angle....

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
If it's "silly" to you, then why did you say it? You said it doesn't reflect the opinions of the military....even though through the years general after general after general stated same....WE NEED TROOPS AND NOW. Rummy KNEW what he had when he went in........so that's NO EXCUSE. That's like me saying I'm going to bake a cake, but I only have 1/4 cup flour, then crying victim because my cake sucked.

Your little "conspiracy" rants about *liberal* this and *liberal* that doesn't cover up the fact that Rummy sucked big time. I'm sorry Rumsfeld couldn't hide his suckiness any longer, but no one can when they suck. The bull***** doesn't work any longer, so maybe you should try another angle....

It is not silly to point out that an article does not reflect the viewpoint of the military just because is in the Army Times. It is the viewpoint of the author.

I don't know of any Generals that stated "WE NEED TROOPS AND NOW," unless you are talking about old retired guys who were trying to sell books or get elected.
Rumsfeld was given the authority to plan and execute the war and did so brilliantly. That lasted about a month. After that, he and the military have been restricted. Being a good SecDef does not make on a good administrator of a new country and government intenbt on civil war. He did not choose to disband the previous military and government nor choose the politics of the postwar period where we have been battling terrorists and trying to prevent a civil war. He did not choose who the Iraqis elected nor the policies they have enacted. The bad guys have played the media and left of this country like a fiddle with the fake civilian deaths, "torture," and "wedding party" attacks. Calling it another Vietnam was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[cool_chick]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but Fint, you're so full of ***** it's not even funny. For one, "brilliantly" would ensure weapons are protected and not left unattended to be stolen.

[MRM]

Well, there are known knowns, then there are known unknowns. What really gets me are those unknown unknowns. But my favorite quote was "You'll have a dickens of a time finding a time when I was overoptimistic . . ." Time magazine promptly reported that "dickens" apparently means "ridiculously easy".

Look, I'm as conservative as they come and have a Republican pedigree that stretches back to the Civil War. My parents voted for Ike because Nixon was his running mate and then counted the times they could vote for him after that. (Five times on a national ticket - two as VP, three as president - if you're counting). My family still considers the 1960 and 1964 elections as the darkest moments in our country's history. Well, outside of wartime or the Great Depression, anyway.

But even so, I have to call a spade a spade. Rumsfeld was not the right guy for the job. He made terrible calls, and then went into spin control to claim that setbacks weren't setbacks so he and the administration didn't have to admit they made mistakes. The result was that in failing to admit mistakes, they couldn't do what they needed to correct them.

So here we are years later in a worse position than we started and he's still digging us deeper into the hole. At the very least he needed to go. Any guy who can claim with a straight face that the enemy is getting weaker because their attacks are increasing and getting more effective is eithere delusional or lying. Either way, he's not fit for command.

[fintstone]

I fail to see how anything mentioned in this thread can be blamed an a SecDef. It is the military's job to kill people and break things. It is up to others to determine who to kill and what to break. The problem does not lie with the military or the SecDef. Tell us specifically who you want killed and they will die. The fault is with the willpower of the American people and remainder of our government to allow the military to do what is needed.

[the]

This whole thing has been blundered, and the timing of Rumsfeld was off (should have been done at least 6 months ago, if not 2 years ago when he first tendered his resignation but Bush wouldn't accept it), but Bush should be given some credit for changing course.

The architects of the war are all but gone now. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. etc. etc. All gone, every one of them (well, Cheney is still there, and won't be going anywhere, but he is neutered).

The group that has now finally replaced them in their entirety, and now has Bush's ear (Rice, Scrowcroft, Gates, etc.) are far more reasonable and realistic. The people who have Bush's ear behind the scenes are extremely important, since he is essentially an empty suit.

This is a wreck, but you can't change the past, and I'm willing to give him some credit for finally changing course in a significant way. It is way late for him to be doing it. The best time would have been when he was at the critical juncture of choosing between Powell and Rumsfeld, and he chose Rumsfeld, and Powell therefore left.

But at least it's finally a move in the right direction. It took a major electoral kick to the nuts to get him to do it, but at least he did.

[the]

Originally posted by fintstone
I fail to see how anything mentioned in this thread can be blamed an a SecDef. It is the military's job to kill people and break things. It is up to others to determine who to kill and what to break. The problem does not lie with the military or the SecDef. Tell us specifically who you want killed and they will die. The fault is with the willpower of the American people and remainder of our government to allow the military to do what is needed.

The problem happens when the SecDef tries to go outside of his role of the military and influence/control policy, like Rumsfeld did.

It's what chases away good people from the policy side, like Powell.