[Danimal16]

Originally posted by jluetjen
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...

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