Catch a lot of Janet flights there, fint?

NC,

If you have ever flown on one of the "Janet" birds, they are nothing special inside. Not the newer versions and they are loud, the old -200 series 737's were rode hard and put away wet.

These old gals get 3-6 short to medium legs a day and while the maintenance is very good they are really getting long in the tooth...

Joe,
Thanks for your reasoned response. I agree that we should give more weight to experience. OTOH, experience does not guarantee wisdom. I wish GWB had listened to those in his circle with military and/or civilian experience with a different view of winning a "war on terror".

Sometimes those with the most focused experience don't have the time of inclination to step back for a bigger - more balanced - more nuanced view. We have a very good, very successful model for dealing with threats like Islamic authoritarianism. And we have a great deal of positive experience with that model. The Cold War was a bi-partisan policy that lasted through nine presidents and many different political changes. We contained communism everywhere and confronted them where necessary. And we won. All of us, together. Democrat and Republican.

It wasn't just military leaders who developed and ran that policy - that's all I meant. And remember, not all military leaders agree with current neo-con policy and the resulting decisions.

I agree, living in many different places is good for ones outlook, one's soul, and one's humility. I always enjoy reading your posts - while trying to moderate my blood pressure . :D

Seems like they would have something a bit more comfortable and/or new. I can only imagine what kind of stuff gets developed there.

Joe, when it comes to invading countries, or leading a large scale military organisation , Rumsfeld did not have the experience
show me any prior track record in leading at the top military level

you know, and i know , that he didn't have that experience
when he left the navy , he was an instructor with zero active combat under his belt...

yet he felt confident enough to dismiss Shinzecki, and flat out bully him in retirement...

Shinzecki DID have the experience, he DID have the trackrecord and he HAD lead military operations

Rummy was the plumber , doing surgery
and as it turns out , he got it wrong in Iraq

again , i ask you do you agree with Rumsfeld ignoring Shinzecki when he did?? cause that is in direct contradiction to your comments about experience and right man for the job...


it's called a forum for just that reason, a place to discuss things
there's no section in Waynes rules that excludes non Americans from discussing American policy and how American policy affects non american folks, if you don't like it , don't read it , it's your right

if you can't take the comments, then perhaps you should urge your governement from meddling outside it's borders as if it were the police of the world... high trees catch a lot of wind...


then why didn't Rummy listen to his top General?
why did he dismiss the Powel Doctrine, and invented his own Doctrine?

never said the America was the wost country in the world, you're a bit overreacting there

people die every day to get into the EU just the same
that's no measurement for moral supremacy
it's a measurement for better living standards than the origin of these folks...

Rummy's exit memo can be paraphrased as follows:

"Yes, in hindsight, I am as stupid as everyone said."

Implied but not said out loud: "P.S. George, so are you".

But we will proabably have to wait twenty years for an apology like McNamara's

Of course, Rummy was just too proud too listen to McNamara anyhow.

Posts like these only reinforce Joe's comments. Clearly the posts regarding Eric Shinseki being dismissed by Rumsfeld, etc are simply repetition of outright lies. Shinseki retired on the date he had projected before Rumsfeld even took office. Although Rumsfeld and Shinseki had a great deal of differences regarding the composition of the Army (Shinseki favored a cold war type military while Rumsfeld advocated a faster more flexible force)....history appears to have proven Rumsfeld right...not Shinseki. This was the source of animosity between the two, not Iraq. The testimony regarding Iraq was just a parting shot by a dissed general who was still fighting the coild war and wrong about just about everything.

Joe:

I think America is probably one of the very finest countries on this earth. Perhaps the very finest.

That said, the current administration is apalling. Some of my friends think they are merely incompetent. I think they are war criminals, and should be put on trial.

That is the range of views with which I am familiar. I don't know many people whose views of your current administration fall outside of this range. And THAT is what us non-Americans find upsetting.

It is important to draw a distinction between the country and the people on the one hand, and the administration on the other.

I think it is a sorry thing that Americans have become so complacent, so highly medicated, so brainwashed by CNN, Fox and USA Today - that they don't storm Washington and string the current administration up by their toes. In another era this would surely have happened.

Rumsfeld was in the Navy ROTC in college and then served in the Navy from 1954 to 1957. From 1957 until 1975 he served in the Navy Reserve until he became Secretary of Defense (the first time) in 1975. He retired from the Navy in 1989 in the rank of Captain and his rank would have likely equaled Shinseki's if he had remained drilling after 1975...but couldn't as SecDef.
Serving twice as SecDef seems to me to be leading at a top military level...and Captain (0-6) is pretty high in the food chain as well. It is funny that Rumsfeld's experience (including about 7 years as SecDef) is worth nothing while Murtha's reserve time was somehow the holy grail. Perspective!

Well basically Rumsfeld lied to the American people all along then...
He always seemed like such a prick in those press conferences.

The last administration (Clinton) was even worse, so lets just all agree that we need a change for this country.

Totally agree with your last paragraph and have started watching Fox and BBC for my news information. CNN and the usual American news media are worthless for unbiased coverage.

No, Clinton was bad, but Bush is significantly worse. Clinton's war crimes killed about 4,000 people, Bush's war crimes have killed over half a million.

By that standard alone, Bush is worse.

Then we come to Bush's spending like he's Lyndon Johnson reincarnate, threatening war like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or worse.

And more.

Clinton was worse because he ignored the gathering storm for eight years despite numerous attacks against us and our interests, and there was simply nothing illegal about the Iraq war. It was authorized fifty-three ways to sunday.

false and false, as has been repeatedly shown on this board, but you were already told that before.

That's not true, but as stevepaa mentioned, you've had this pointed out before. Look in the thread about the Bush indictment, it's all laid out in that, point by point, with irrefutable supporting evidence.

I have no idea what sort of leftist delusion you live in, but both assertions in my last post are 100% accurate.

Sorry charlie.

Give me a link and i will refute it point by point.

The Iraq Study Group report states clearly that the original troop levels and post battle stability plans ordered up by Rumsfield were inadequate at best and optimistically negligent at worst. It always strikes me how easy war strategy and "nation building" must seem at the highest levels of our government. I will never understand how or why Generals with "boot on the ground" experience are so easily ignored during actual planning.
Why the hell were they put in command authority positions if no one is going to pay attention to what they say? As it turned out, the generals (Shinseki - sp ?) were right and Rumsfield and Wolfowitz (neither with real battle experience) were far off the mark.

Too bad they didn't follow the Powell Doctrine.

Too bad they never read State Dept's post war security plan for Iraq.

That's a hoot! Please enlighten us on all of Rummy's extensive past military experience that led to his "brilliant" handling of this debacle.

Edited for not having read the full thread before shooting my mouth off:

So you told us. Let's see, ROTC, 3 years active Navy, Reserves Captain. Now there's qualification for SecDef if I ever saw it.

I'm still laughing.

snipe....We already have one individual here who will dismiss anything that he does not agree with. Are you going to become #2?

Makes things intersting.....

4 yrs NROTC, 3 years active duty, 18 years drilling reserve, 7 years as SecDef (served twice), 7 years as a US Representative, 2 years as US ambassador to NATO, White House Chief of Staff...etc, etc....It is just silly to infer that he was not qualified. He was one of the most qualified SecDefs in history...certainly much more qualified that the incoming SecDef.

Did you look at the all-star cast that comprises the study group? What makes you think they would know how to go to war any better than the generals that determined the actual troop levels?

There is nobody on my "Ignore List," but there are members here whose posts I skip or perhaps skim.

I noticed that Sniper asked for a link and vowed he would refute each assertion one-by-one. That's the same amount of intellectual curiosity that Dubya has. None. Step One: Make the final decision. Step Two: Begin to gather data for justification purposes.

Joe, one of my favorite philosophy classes was one called "Logic." In that class, we looked at deductive and inductive arguments. Obviously the former are stronger than the latter but even inductive proofs can have substantial merit. On the other hand, there are argument tactics that have no merit whatsoever and only serve to confuse and sidestep the more meritorious premises and observations. Appeal to Authority is one of those. "This guy said it, so it's true." Or "This guy has no experience, so his opinions are obviously false." When you drew the conclusion that Stijn's observations should be dismissed out of hand because his military experience fails to meet your criteria ("I rest my case you Honor"), it was your logic that failed, not his. In a hiring decision, experience is quite relevant. In a logical argument, experience has absolutely no merit or weight whatsoever. The arguments stand on their own........or not.

Fint,
We can agree that it's an all-star cast with a great deal of personal and politicial experience in real on-the-ground politics. Their review of troop level requirement was based upon information gathered from those actually involved in Iraq war decision making with the benefit of four years of hindsight.

It seems the top of the chain wanted to fight and win in Iraq using new developing principles and ideas. Not all senior military command shared that particular desire and wanted a more standard or "older" strategic battle plan. In the end, top got the generals it wanted rather than the generals it needed. Proof is in the scoreboard.

For what it's worth, I don't think they know military needs any better
than the military creating the plans. I do think they know better than to believe they know better than the generals and admirals they pay for advice. I do think, as a group, they tend to listen to their military experts and fit those recommendations into their policy decisions.

That attitude and that wise practice is real leadership.

The group was just a bunch of "has-been" politicians with little applicable experience to any type of military action. I cannot imagine how they were able to make any type of assessment without ever leaving the safe "green zone" in Baghdad.

Bob,

I have discussed things before with M21 and if a valid point was shown he agreed.

Post a link to prove where he is incorrect and let the discussions begin.

Joe

Supe,

I never said that Stijn's observations should be dismissed. Please show where I said that then lets move on.

My comments in this area are that someone who has military experience and background might very well know a lot more about the MILITARY than someone with absolutely NO EXPERIENCE in the military! Novel idea that this was!

I do not go to a hardware store to buy my groceries. I do not go to a Burger King for camera supplies. I do not go to the dentist and ask for tires for my car.

I tend to go to someone who knows about what I am looking for. Therefore I go to a supermarket for my groceries, camera store for camera stuff and so on. Following this same LOGICAL reasoning I tend to view someone who has spent their entire life with the American MILITARY as knowing a bit more than someone from Rotterdamm who has absolutely no MILITARY EXPERIENCE at all.

If I ever needed information about Rotterdamm I would contact him immediately as he is very experienced, as I believe that he has lived in that area of Europe most of his life. BTW, Stijn you might not like this but part of my family lived in Rotterdamm in 1507. We might be related and wouldnt that be a joy! :)

Joe A

That was great.:D

i know Eff-all about R'dam Joe
i'm Belgian, ask me about Ypres instead, hell , i'll even give you a guided tour and feed you drunker then a skunk on Abbey beer...

And i noticed that no such link was ever provided.

Since i've come to this board i have factually bashed the living snot out of Rummy and Co, yet here i am being painted as an unreasonable 'neo con type'.

There's just no winning with you leftists.

Iraq was/is a total disaster in many ways, but some of the charges leveled by the left(or fluff job asssessments made by the right), are pure nonsense.

TPFDL, Shinseki, Abizaid, Clark, and McCaffrey(a former CO of mine BTW) all said we needed at least 385k troops(some said as many as 500k).

One does not need to be a general to understand the words coming out of the mouths of several people who WERE generals, and who have gone out of their way to publically SKEWER Rumnamara and Franks.

The warplan was undeniably optimistic, it definitely neglected the all-important "post kinetic ops"(as franks would put it), and it DEFINITELY utilized a force that was at best 1/2 the size as was required to do the job right.

I have read three books on this subject, have had extensive conversations both in person, via IM, PM, and bbs with NCOs and officers from all over the world (ranging from an Indian Brigadier to an Israeli Corporal to a field grade west point instructor who commanded the very first Stryker Co in Iraq). I run a military board with over 1600 members, several hundred of whom have actually served in Iraq AND in A-stan. My sister was a medevac pilot in Iraq for a tour and a half too.

So yeah, i feel like i have a pretty good idea what's going on. And it's not good.

The problem is political, it is not military. There is simply no will to win. Not on the part of the leadership, and not on the part of the American public.

So in the end, when we lose and come running home like beaten dogs, no one should be surprised at all. Quite frankly, we're asking for what's coming due to our own collective stupidity.

yet when i say that, i get told i'm wrong cause i don't know jack about things since i never was in the military...
doesn't matter that i can read books too
or was raised amidst the cemetary's and memorials of WW1, excellent way to learn what war is ,and what it does to men, women and children...

that's 'cause you're a dutchie, Stijn. ;)

but i'm not. :cool:

I know. :) Damn, I had visions of your veins popping as you read this. Oh well. ;)

I really despise the blaming of the American public for the bungled war. Many never bought into the B2 cadre's original rationale for the war, and the shifting rationale and shifting objectives have made it all the less supportable. Also, America was not asked to sacrifice for this war...only America's soldiers and their families sacrificed. Hell, we even had tax cuts (top-end loaded) while we spent like crazy on this war, America can succeed when all are behind a course of action. But don't blame the public for an Administration's war-mongering and ineptitude.

There, I feel better. :)

The objectives have never shifted, nor have the justifications.
Some of them turned out to be mistaken or flat wrong, but the justifications have always been the same.

As far as the American people, for the most part we have the attention span of a knat. Not my fault that offends you.

ROTFLMAO man you are a comedian.


Objective number 1 in the war on terror was to get OBL. Now it is not even on the list anymore.

You seriously think we are not still looking for him?

LOL!

YOU are the comedian my friend!

PS: we were talking about the war in Iraq my friend. I hate to trouble you with such subtlety, but please try to pay attention to detail. :)

According to the Bush junta, and many associated neocons say otherwise. Better read more.

Quote:

Some of them turned out to be mistaken or flat wrong, but the justifications have always been the same.

All have turned out to be some utopian miasma formulated by Israelophile neoconservatives, and have failed miserably.

Quote:

As far as the American people, for the most part we have the attention span of a knat. Not my fault that offends you.

Without an actual defense of America in progress, can you blame them for deciding that what they wanted in 2002 was a mistake?

Some of us knew it was wrong then, and now have the duty to keep the information stream flowing about how to get out of Iraq with mimimum loses of troops and Iraqi lives. Certainly, as Fred Reed wrote, no politician is concerned.