Rumsfield's Parting Thoughts

[Moneyguy1]

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.....

[fintstone]

Originally posted by dafischer
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.

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.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
The Iraq Study Group report states clearly ....

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?

[Superman]

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.

[JSDSKI]

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.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
Fint,
We can agree that it's an all-star cast with a great deal of personal and political 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.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
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.....

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

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Superman
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.

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

[Jim Richards]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-hands.html

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-hands.html

That was great.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Joeaksa

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

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...

[m21sniper]

[i]I noticed that Sniper asked for a link and vowed he would refute each assertion one-by-one.

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.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by m21sniper
*snip*
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.

*snip*

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...

[Jim Richards]

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

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
that's 'cause you're a dutchie, Stijn.

but i'm not.

[Jim Richards]

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

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.

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.

[m21sniper]

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.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by m21sniper
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.

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.

[m21sniper]

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.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by m21sniper
The objectives have never shifted, nor have the justifications.

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

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.

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.