Retired Senior Officers Criticize Rumsfeld -- Michael
The news today had been full of articles about the retired military professionals who think Rumsfeld has placed our nation in grave peril because of his incompetence.
Before you blow them off as moonbats, read their testimony. Politburo Diktat has it here.Comments
But McNamara, like Rumsfeld, was someone who spent some time in the military, then went to the corporate world, and came back with a bunch of new ideas. Some good, some bad, and then had their plans thrown out of wack by a war in the process.
From the very beginning, however, both of them came under strong attack from a military heirarchy that generally doesn't like being told to do by people outside the circle, even if they've got some military time long ago. Think "Whiz Kids."
Rumsfeld will probably be seen somewhat more negatively, because he refused to adjust his plans according to the intervening reality, and that's coming from someone (me) who likes the guy. Counter-insurgency is a people problem, Rumsfeld's looking for technological solutions (which depending how China goes, COULD come in handy, but isn't going to help us much in the Middle East).
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 01:11 AM (TrMUD)
Posted by: Village Idiot at September 26, 2006 01:13 AM (zoBWw)
Little hope right now of beefing it up, we've got to dilute standards to keep it at current strength. Missed opportunity.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 01:21 AM (TrMUD)
Posted by: at September 26, 2006 01:21 AM (RlsWQ)
I think that pretty much everybody has, or should have, seen the HBO saga called "Band of Brothers," and that is just a micro picture of war during WWII. Or "siege on firebase gloria" (one of my favorite vietnam movies, AND it has R.Lee Ermy as SgtMaj haffner, a fictionalized account of the tet offensive)
First, we were WAY OVER! prepared, and overmanned for the initial invation of normandy, causing a gigantic number of casualties on the beaches, had we moved instantly and quickly in 1942 rather than waiting until 1944, we would have been able to create small internal pockets of guerilla combat offsetting the germans ability to lay that kind of horror on us, rather we went with a massive single action assault.
Second, 82 and 101 won their names, and claimed their fame (is that the phrase?) at Bastone. Grotesquely outnumbered in a miserable position with little to no supply, and almost completely unequipped for the climate, environment and situation that they were put in. the 82, and 101 stood because they were the best trained US servicemen capable of adapting and perservering.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't arguments to be made, and improvements to be sought, but to think that saying "more troops!" or "more gear" or any of the common cries that compassionate commanders like these have are loony or invalid, but what they in fact are, is lazy, and cowardly. the 82, and 101 might have bitched but they never would have withdrawn, or give credence to that idea.
Could it have been a more optimal or perfect situation? You BET Your ASS it could, the US Mil could have been at a 2.2 million population rather than a 1.3, now at about 1.45. Could we have already had significant anti-insurgent tech prepared prior to this conflict? You bet your ass, but we were too busy buying shit that is COOL! but didn't need to be fast-tracked, simply because people love the AF tech rather than understanding that if you can't hold land, you will lose it no matter how many times you can clear it.
What makes the military of the US the greatest that the planet has ever witnessed, and likely ever will, is that we have faith in our service, we inspire faith in our service, and we need those individuals in our service to be the best that they are. So far, that faith hasn't failed us, and so far those individuals have made us proud.
Should we keep working, and work more intelligently to give them every weapon they could use affectively? You bet your ass.
But, it is their jobs to be called on, and to answer, and they have yet to let us down, It is the job of the president to disappoint servicemen, cuz noone wants to go to war, so the second the CinC says "go to war" he has disappoined them, but the servicemen count on the people, and the congress who stand in the stead of the people to not let them down.
Congress? Stop grandstanding, please! investigate, but don't grandstand, and remove it from television, release transcripts or tapes, but get rid of the live feed. YOU are letting our troops down because you are telling them not only that you don't care, but that they aren't good enough.
I promise you, take everything with an engine away from those individuals serving right now, and they will still win, cuz it is their nature, it is their ideal it is what they must do, because CLEARLY they love us more than many of us love them.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 01:22 AM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 01:23 AM (QTv8u)
When I was in, I had a very liberal instructor (not DI) who would go into a tear (is that the spelling?) about how macnamara in fact called us stupid and figured even people bordering on retarded could be affective servicemen, and he used this phrase again and again, and I think I once heard my father use it "Macnamara's 100 thousand."
I don't know if it's a true story, I haven't seen anything about it, and frankly I'm better off, otherwise I would be insane, but if it IS true? That is one arrogant low life, should be sterilized motherfucker if he's that fucking cynical.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 01:27 AM (QTv8u)
Also, they conveniently sidestep the problem of supplying additional forces. Supposedly the country will unite behind a different Secretary of Defense and authorize a larger effort in Iraq? Unlikely.
They also have failed to acknowledge the progress in training Iraqi troops and growing Iraqi combat leadership. And finally, the Colonel who argues for better equipment seems to be completely ignorant of the constraints of the modern procurement process. Comparing today's procurement to WWII is like comparing computer technologies for the same two periods.
But some very interesting comments as to why our occupation isn't going swimmingly.
Posted by: geoff at September 26, 2006 01:30 AM (Id2DF)
I think both Victor, and Charles Krulak would agree, as, probably would Clausewitz (I read "on war" and a lot of the "essays"/dispatches by victor, and virtually all of the writings of Chuck since he was MY commandant) At least Rummy's focus on technology fit the tried and true methods of mobile warfare.
Read essays about strategy and the affective application of military force, and you will ALWAYS find that no matter the strategy, they reference the mobile warfare concept that we the United States have adopted. These theater strategy papers aren't based on policy but on most affective implementation, and the ability to adjust your tactics at a whim is the foundation of all of our strategic planning.
Mobility is victory, FUCK! if it wasn't for the UN, and for Iraqi Morale, there wouldn't be a green zone, cuz we would still be random wasps or army ants attacking out of nowhere to destroy our enemies.
Never fucking with something you don't understand, and our tactics own, and our strategies built on our tactics, always work.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 01:42 AM (QTv8u)
o/t sorta, from Reuters:
"Democrats would like the November elections to be seen as a referendum on President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war. The party got a boost this past weekend with media reports of an intelligence report indicating that the Iraq war had led to a mushrooming of jihadist ideology."
I'm not sure if that says more about Reuters bias or democrats' treasonous behavior. Or both.
Posted by: Paulitics at September 26, 2006 01:42 AM (BPwgd)
Posted by: bbudd at September 26, 2006 01:50 AM (QQ9sc)
It is actually worse. McNamara reduced the requirements of servicemembers as a social experiment. This is going to show just how far the Democrats have come: back in those days they thought that going into the military made people good citizens and caused them to move up in life. They lowered the standards as a way to give more blacks the opportunity to join the military.
As I said, he had some bad ideas too. I mean it is idealistic, but you don't play around with the military like this if you can avoid it. But this was also when blacks were just getting on their feet, so he thought they'd give it a push.
Of course, nowadays it is seen by the normal African American studies types as a way to recruit poor black cannon fodder.
Good ideas, and bad ideas.
Posted by: mlr at September 26, 2006 01:52 AM (TrMUD)
Up next at AoS HQ: Dick Cheney shoots like a pussy and John Bolton's moustache is effette.
After Ace gets rendered to Syria, I assume you'll be purging the other guest posters, too.
Well, you can count on my support, Michael. I know which way the wind is blowing. Just bring back some good trolls, for the love of all that is decent in this world.
Posted by: sandy burger at September 26, 2006 01:56 AM (Uuy++)
I think most of these guys are spoiled, I know they are a MUCH hier pay grade than I ever was, but. . ..well, they're officers, so I don't feel bad.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 01:56 AM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 02:00 AM (QTv8u)
I haven't read through all of them, but a common theme is increasing the size of the force to successfully complete the mission. (At least one specifically mentions timetabled withdrawal would not work.)
Posted by: dorkafork at September 26, 2006 02:03 AM (ksDNy)
The military is a morale boost to the iraqi's, not an exclusive protectorate of constabulary that the left wants to paint the US military forces in Iraq as.
If we reduce, as they are building, we say "suck it bitch! you're on your own!!! Thanks for the re-election!MuwahahahahahahhaHAHAHAH MUWAHAHAHAHAHHA"
Fucking lefty morons.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 02:06 AM (QTv8u)
Posted by: pendelton at September 26, 2006 02:09 AM (NQSCc)
We are not fighting the Warsaw Pact. We are fighting an insurgency, a distributed low-tech, high-concept war that demands greater numbers of ground forces, not fewer. Mr. Rumsfeld won’t acknowledge this fact and has failed to adapt to the current situation. He has tried and continues to fight this war on the cheap."
This is pretty on the money.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:18 AM (TrMUD)
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:21 AM (TrMUD)
I support Rummy's plan on focusing on technology and light infantry forces. That is fine. The problem is the guy is a prima donna who refuses to listen to any advice before the war, and when fears became reality, refused to change tactics on the ground for months (other than expand coercive force which blew up in his face at Abu Gharib). The Insurgency, as we know it know, might not have happened (or probably would have been crushed far sooner) had Rummy not been running the show.
Bottom line--he screwed up on the number of troops needed for the initial occupation. We needed to keep the peach and initial security. Most DoD leaders facing that fact would respond, but Rummy did not want to appear like McNamara to W's Johnson (even though Vietnam and Iraq are two completely different types of wars and conflicts).
Posted by: Joe at September 26, 2006 02:22 AM (+PS1/)
Rummy wasn't a character in my BoB analogy. The MEN were.
And I guarantee you, that if you take everything but the weapons and ammo away from those individuals in Iraq right now, they will still win.
THAT was my point.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 02:33 AM (QTv8u)
They replaced the Jeep with those dumb looking "gamma goats" which were replaced by the Humvees. (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
Jeeps were great back in the day before everyone and thier camel had RPGs'. I never understood the point of not having armored cars for convoys instead of Humvees.
Armored humvees are a sick joke.
I also agree about the point w/regard to rotation. I don't recall anyone ever telling me that if I was in a war, I'd only be in combat for a year and then I'd go home. The recruiters told me that if a war started during my enlistment, I was there for the duration.
One of the things about these officers though, when Hackworth decided that the Vietnam war was fucked, he resigned and then said why. He didn't wait around until he got his star and secured his pension and board of directors appointments.
The last bunch of generals who came out against Rumsfeld all waited until they retired.
I've quit jobs because I thought my boss was a crook or because I didn't like what they were up to.
I'd give these guys more cred if they had done this. Or maybe if they were coming out after a bunch of other officers had quit in disgust.
But they didn't do that. They stuck around until the pension was ready and then they got out.
Something their troops couldn't have done.
Posted by: Mike Kelly at September 26, 2006 02:34 AM (cQwLX)
I agree - it was John Paul Vann who said that we fought the Vietnam War for 1 year, 10 times. Back then we had 2 year draftees, 1 year training, 1 year fighting. We also spread around the combat experience to get the experience around and even up promotions. That was just stupid.
But now? Now we've got a volunteer military that is treading water with 1 year tours.
Posted by: at September 26, 2006 02:39 AM (TrMUD)
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:40 AM (TrMUD)
If Secretary Rumsfeld has billions of dollars to spend every month in Iraq, why is the U.S. getting beaten so badly?
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta at September 26, 2006 02:42 AM (PWOwT)
If you are talking about war, you are clearly retarded.
If you are talking about press coverage? you are clearly a lefty.
If you are just plain retarded? you are a lefty.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 26, 2006 02:48 AM (QTv8u)
When they say that this Administration (with our grateful backing, being the nation of pussies that we have become) has done too much "talking the talk" and too little "walking the walk" when it comes to fighting a long, global war, they're right.
It's is incomprehensible to me that we, after five years of war, are still diddling along as if the war is something that we can fight on the side while supplying octogenarians with free drugs and throwing billions at Raycist Nagin, just to name two examples.
Oh, I am full of admiration of the paratroopers at Bastogne who fought their asses off against impossible odds and won, but it's something you do because circumstances FORCE you to, it's not something that you go in with as a plan. Unless you're psychotic, that is.
Nor am I criticizing Rumsfeld (whom I like very much) for not being able to clairvoyantly predict every possible contingency in advance. Nobody can. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
But once the situation on the ground changes, you bloody well change WITH it. You don't fark around with stop-gap measures because it's so much easier than admitting to the public that things have changed and it's time to put your mouths where the money is.
They're just whiners wanting more, more, MORE? Well then, explain to me how every little bit that they say about shoveling troops back and forth, capturing ground only to give it up and having to re-capture it later is absolutely true?
If we, as a people, don't man up and recognize that this is a real global war and that we're going to have to sacrifice as our troops sacrifice to win it, then we'll lose. And we'll farkin' well DESERVE to lose for being a bunch of American Idol-worshipping lazy no-good assnuggets.
But hey, continue to shoot the messenger if you must. Unlike the execrable Clarks and Murthas, none of those officers even hinted at cutting and running, voting Democrat or that the war was a bad idea to begin with.
They merely stated things as they saw them, analyzed the facts as known to them, and suggested a way out of the mess. That's what you ought to expect from leaders, and if you wish to rake them over the coals simply because their conclusions aren't the ones you'd like to hear, then you're just as dumb as the wag-the-dog sycophants of the Klintoon Administration.
We're at war. It's a global one. It's a long one. We need to start acting accordingly and give our troops every single nut and bolt they need to get the job done, even if it means that we'll have to pass up on going to Cancun next summer. Why the everloving f*ck should our troops be the only ones to bear the sacrifice?
And it's about time that somebody stood up and criticized President Milquetoast's Administration and their cheap-ass way of pretending to fight a war that will decide what kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in.
It's not that misjudgements were made, that's human, it's that some people refuse to acknowledge that St Bush and his disciples could even BE human.
I support the war, I want to win it because we HAVE to win it, and I don't care what I'll have to sacrifice to get there. Even if it's Bush's book deals and speaking engagements once he leaves office.
Posted by: Misha I at September 26, 2006 02:56 AM (S0K0u)
Posted by: geoff at September 26, 2006 02:59 AM (Id2DF)
Strykers have proven very effective. Since insurgency is an information war, using our high tech weapons like UAVs and better commo, is a great way to force multiply.
I think the only thing that FREAKS me out about these reports is the one where Rumsfeld threatened to fire the next person who asked about a post-war plan. That's inexcusable.
Posted by: Aaron at September 26, 2006 03:25 AM (Yo0L6)
Posted by: Harun at September 26, 2006 03:28 AM (Yo0L6)
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta at September 26, 2006 03:33 AM (PWOwT)
Interesting post that puts generals into 3 schools of thought...
Posted by: Aaron at September 26, 2006 03:35 AM (Yo0L6)
True.
What we ALSO need is ENOUGH of them, as opposed to fire brigades being shuffled all over the bloody place.
You take the place, then you HOLD it.
As opposed to pissing on one fire, then running off to piss on another while somebody's getting ready to light a match where you just left.
Posted by: Misha I at September 26, 2006 03:38 AM (S0K0u)
Posted by: at September 26, 2006 03:40 AM (GIL7z)
Posted by: Linda at September 26, 2006 03:45 AM (GIL7z)
We have to win this or we are doomed.
Posted by at September 26, 2006 03:40 AM
[Please stand by for further instructions.]
Posted by: anonymous at September 26, 2006 03:52 AM (PWOwT)
I think the Officers raised some interesting points.
I am concerned however how they decided that now it was Really! Fucking! Important! to make these points this far down the road instead of earlier in the timeline.
Hell yeah I'd like to see a more aggressive campaign, but then, all of the data I have is what is fed to me through MSM and Centcom email from the PR Battalion. I'm not in the shit so I can't really decide what is the truth and what aint.
So again, I have to say, if they were so damned concerned about the National Security and Rummy's incompetence, why didn't they resign their commissions right on the spot?
It would have given them loads of credibility if they had. Rather, they wait until a crucial midterm election, testify before a bunch of Democrat politicians and they want me to think that they're doing this out of concern for the troops?
That's not how you get people to take you seriously. It is how you fuck the country by getting a bunch of cut and run politicians elected. And if that happens what then?
Will the Dems spring for the cash to ramp up the production of the M1117's they say we need there?
Hell no. Might as well send some paint and start making a helopad on the American Embassy in Baghdad.
These officers are being used. And they can't say that they don't know it either.
Posted by: Mike Kelly at September 26, 2006 03:56 AM (cQwLX)
Posted by: linda at September 26, 2006 04:07 AM (GIL7z)
Are they being used? Well, even if they aren't, it's damn near certain that they will be, no matter what their personal intentions might be.
And that's very unfortunate. I'd very much like to see their constructive criticism being used for what it is, rather than as a pawn in another domestic political game. I don't think that it was their intention with the timing either, particularly considering that none of them are babbling about voting Democrat, that Iraq was a "mistake" or that we need to "cut and run" which is the name of the tune that the "loyal" opposition is singing all day long.
If THAT had been their intention, then they'd just have taken a page out of Jack Murthaf*cker's playbook and recited the gospel according to St Chamberlain.
It still doesn't change the fact that it's what the Dhimmis will use it for, however, but let's not lose sight of what they're saying because of that.
So why DID they wait until now to say what they're saying? That's a good question. One possibility would be that they know that the only time that you stand a chance of getting the attention of politicians is about five minutes before an election, because that's about the attention span of your average voter. If you can't fit it in between two commercial spots on "Survivor", Mr and Mrs La-Z-Boy won't even know it happened.
Again: I think what makes this particular outburst of criticism more interesting and useful than the ones we've gotten used to from partisan hacks is that they DIDN'T shill for the other side.
They pointed out the flaws in the current strategy and suggested, helpfully, ways that we might fight and WIN the war, as opposed to pointing out ways in which we might run away from it.
They didn't suggest that the solution would be to vote Democrat. If they had, I would've dismissed them as the partisan hacks that they would be, because the only thing worse than sticking to a bad leader is voting for somebody worse.
Still, I agree that no matter what their intentions, the MSM and the usual suspects will turn their criticism into a battle cry for surrender.
OUR job, then, is to maintain focus on what they SAID as opposed to what the rabble will CLAIM that they said.
Posted by: Misha I at September 26, 2006 04:22 AM (S0K0u)
Posted by linda at September 26, 2006 04:07 AM
Well, yes, you do sound like an alarmist, and yes, I think you're exagerrating quite a bit. (Hence the Hyperbole joke.)
Under the U.S. Constitution it is the "stuffed suit(s)" who direct and control the military. Not the other way around.
Which brings us to your question. My solution? Well, that would just be some words in a comments section on a meaningless weblog.
I suggest you pose that question to your Commander-in-Chief
and his Secretary of War. Those are the "stuffed suit(s)" in charge at the moment.
Posted by: anonymous at September 26, 2006 04:44 AM (PWOwT)
After Ace gets rendered to Syria, I assume you'll be purging the other guest posters, too.
I intend for this to be bloodless -- like a Thai coup. The other guest posters will be given an opportunity to get their assets out of the country.
Except for JackM. That fucker is going to suffer.
Well, you can count on my support, Michael. I know which way the wind is blowing. Just bring back some good trolls, for the love of all that is decent in this world.
I'm studying Ace's administration page right now so that I can figure out how to bring back Cedarford.
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 04:53 AM (LPlsm)
Why? They're not allowed. This is the military equivalent of the Allen hunting story.
Furthermore, the entire exercise of demanding things for which there is and has never been the political will (and quite apart from the administration) so that everything could have been error-free from day 1 is deeply unserious.
If people are more gloomy now about Iraq it has nothing to do with the anti-insurgent *capability* of our and the Iraqi security forces, which show no signs (or trends) of tipping away from our favor, but from revised estimates of political will, both ours (due to this very gloom! idiots) and, more importantly, the Iraqis'. The idea that winning *by some bigger margin* in each engagement on the military side would obviate the political-existential choice before the Iraqis (and us, but most importantly them) is, again, deeply unserious fantasy.
It is the same we-are-the-only-actors fantasy that drives the left and their hatred for, well, the only actors that count.
Our role in Iraq is already secondary. All the training and equipment in the world won't get the Iraqi Army to enter a fight they don't want, or one their leaders lack the will for. The decision is theirs... To be, or not to be?
(If you want to talk 2003-04, let's talk Powell, Armitage, Rice, and Bremer.)
Posted by: someone at September 26, 2006 05:08 AM (LS1TS)
Posted by: Linda at September 26, 2006 05:20 AM (GIL7z)
I agree that we should take and hold territory, but the forces most suited for that would be Iraqi forces. No matter how much training we have for counter-insurgency, our grunts do not speak Arabic. Imagine if you replaced all of Compton's police with cops from Hamburg...how effective would they be?
I also think people think that their "counter-historical" scenarios would have ended up with rosy outcomes when they might have ended up at about the same place we are now. It's hard to deter an insurgency in a country SWAMPED with weapons.
But to be sure the planning sucked and lots of good ideas were not tried out (like an oil trust.)
Question: after the Iraq lesson, would you think that we could plan better for, say, Iran, and be MORE successful or do you think the Iranians would be MORE successful after seeing how to hinder an occupation?
Personally, we might have been best off putting Chalabi in charge for 3-5 years and stamping HARD on all militias. (except the Kurds.)
Posted by: Aaron at September 26, 2006 05:47 AM (Yo0L6)
For the record, yes, that is hyperbolic.
And if you think your government is likely to respond to "the will of the people," you just haven't been paying attention.
Posted by: anonymous at September 26, 2006 05:49 AM (PWOwT)
Such a regime could make the hard choices like disarming militias and collective punishments...
Keep in mind also that countries like Colombia, Peru, India, Sri Lanka, and even Thailand and the Philippines have interminable insurgencies ongoing...and yet they function decently enough.
Posted by: Aaron at September 26, 2006 05:53 AM (Yo0L6)
That means a change in objectives, and while I'm for it (because I think Democracy in Iraq is now a pipe dream), their rhetoric doesn't match such thinking.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 06:01 AM (TrMUD)
I'm musing on that for the last gasp possibility and that it would be a sort of transition period back to a democracy.
Personally, I think as long as we are not losing, we are winning...and we are not losing. Maybe a Rumsfeld resignation would increase some morale and bring in new thinking, though?
Posted by: Aaron at September 26, 2006 06:16 AM (Yo0L6)
I humbly request that you refrain from posting empty words in a meaningless weblog. If this is meaninless why the hell bother?!! With all due respect.
Again, to be totally hyperbolic - we have to win this or we are doomed. If it means that Rumsfeld resigns - so be it. How many times have we seen in our own little worlds, people who become ineffectual because of arrogant stubborness. His way has not worked - we are not totally losing, yet- but running around in circles and very well could lose this thing. I am concerned - very much so. Do I know what to do? Nope. Not a military strategist. I guess you don't either. But I can bitch and I can vote too.
Posted by: linda at September 26, 2006 07:35 AM (ncR9Y)
Posted by: lauraw at September 26, 2006 07:49 AM (DbybK)
C'mon, folks, the back-stabbing, leaks, and poor post-war planning aren't coming from Rumsfeld's branch. Where did Armitage work? Who failed to get the Turks on board for the 4th ID? Who bought into the French assurances over the UNSC vote?
Posted by: Robert Crawford at September 26, 2006 07:56 AM (n5eDP)
My solution? Well, that would just be some words in a comments section on a meaningless weblog.
Alllllllrighty then.
Cut-n-Run. Why didn't you say so from the start?
Posted by: lauraw at September 26, 2006 08:04 AM (DbybK)
They are the same guys, who Clinton complained about Sunday. They build systems for obsolete war concepts and when asked to employ them they run for the hillls and refuse to cooperate. It's a good thing they've left the military because they left a mess.
My view - Good Ridence and Shut the F*** up!
Posted by: Ron LaCanne at September 26, 2006 08:32 AM (b5aUb)
If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents.
Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are fighting a war in secret that threatens our democratic values.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at September 26, 2006 08:32 AM (6qach)
said the same thing about Lincoln.
I read in detail both of the General Officers statements - I use statements very loosely more like political speeches. The first one had no combat experience, not any specific point to point detailed analysis which is the expectation of qualified senior military officers. The other one is not worthy of comment since it was much the same.
Remember the arguments during WWII about strategy, Patton argued details Montegomery argued details - no one talked of the disaster of landing in Normandy vs the south of France, the 10 month delay in shipping everything from the Med to Britain, the endless supply snafu, they focused forward in specific detail, Montgomery wanted a lighting strike to the north, Patton to the south.
Wars are won by focusing forward, not in retrospect.
Also as far as political and military people surrounding them with a like minded staff - lets cut to the chase, please name two or three people who didn't do this anywhere? Its hardly a condemming charge.
Posted by: EricPWJohnson at September 26, 2006 08:41 AM (kuolt)
MIR nails it when he says "Rumsfeld is going to go down as another McNamara. " Seems to me America is at greatest risk of losing wars when we have incompetent, know-it-all SecDefs like these two.
As I've said before, beware of SecDefs with wire frame glasses, but the joke isn't funny when you realize what they cost us.
After November Bush should fire Rummy and get someone - dare I say Schwartkkopf? - who knows how to run a war, and who will direct us to victory in Iraq.
Posted by: Redhand at September 26, 2006 08:44 AM (7G9b2)
Posted by: Linda at September 26, 2006 08:47 AM (ncR9Y)
She's baaaaaack.
Posted by: geoff at September 26, 2006 08:48 AM (Id2DF)
It's like when roaches are in your house. You have to bomb the whole house with poison, then they crawl out and die in plain sight.
Posted by: kevlarchick at September 26, 2006 08:59 AM (jfx+x)
Major General, U.S. Army (Retired)
September 25, 2006
My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service."
I call Bullshit on the first sentence.
You don't leave "on principle" when your time in service reaches the 31-year mark.
There are plenty of other examples of disengenous crap, outright lies and partisan hyperbole all the way down the page.
They wrote too much, always the sign of subterfuge.
.
Posted by: The Machine at September 26, 2006 09:00 AM (L/jMX)
Does anyone know where these generals came from? Are they all from heavy armor or what? There is also no reason to believe anything would be that much different if they got their way. It almost seems like sour grapes to me. Rumsfeld didn't do what they wanted, so they're stomping their feet. The army because it was designed to fight the Sovs on the European battlefield was weighted toward heavy armor and the use of arty and air strikes to soften and shape the battleground, as well as counter enemy advance. This has little place in an occupying force as one finds it in Iraq. While tankers and artillerymen can always pick up a rifle, there is no substitution for light infantry trained for urban combat, crowd control, and civil affairs. The question for the future is does one forgo the heavy armor in favor of light infantry or does one build a bigger army with the increase accruing to lighter forces.
I don't doubt mistakes have been made. They always are. On the other hand I don't see anything these guys are griping about as being that significant in the larger sense. Now if the current commanding general retires and says he requested additional troops and Rummy said no, that's another story. In fact it appears that troop levels are increasing a bit now anyway.
Posted by: Laddy at September 26, 2006 09:24 AM (O8sp8)
Haven't read thru it all yet, but two points:
1. Joe is a troll who's sole mission is to beat Rumsfeld with the Abu Ghraib stick. Ignore this Moron.
2. The statement that MIR appalauded:
Mr. Rumsfeld came into his position with an extraordinary arrogance, and an agenda — to turn the military into a lighter, more lethal armed force. In fact, Rumsfeld’s vision is a force designed to meet a Warsaw Pact type force more effectively
You got it backwards, MIR. Before Rumsfeld became SecDef, the US Military was geared for a war against Warsaw Pact. Rumsfeld and Andrew Marshall want to turn it into a light, nimble fighting force that can take on modern threats.
Everybody who LOVES to critisize Rumsfeld forgets that he is waging two wars with an extraordinarily low body count. I know I know... every casuality is one too many. But compare this war to Vietnam or WWII.
Infact I agree with people who says that Rumsfeld is trying to fight on the cheap. He is trying to fight with being extremely stingy about spending US blood.
$200 million spend between every US death. That is an extraordinary dollar to lives ratio.
Posted by: Tushar D at September 26, 2006 09:39 AM (m1bmI)
1. Take a deep breath.
2. Now ask the following question: Are any of these critics of our SecDef putting their commentary in context?
To wit: Give us an example of what IN YOUR OPINION WAS A WAR BETTER FOUGHT! What war was mistake free? Let's see you morons nominate your candidate for BEST SECDEF EVER -- or BEST WARTIME PRESIDENT. And then we'll have a benchmark to compare your objectivity and judgement -- and then we'll really have some fun!
3. Mistakes are made in ALL wars. And our military is very, very good at analyzing itself ("Lessons Learned").
4. When I read the commentary by these critics I was struck by the obvious and abiding hatred of Donald Rumsfeld that they all share -- these guys have transcended "disgruntled" to "pathological". And, none of them are or were in a position to evaluate what honors or blame ought to accrue to Rumsfeld or to the President -- or to anyone else. None of these guys was privy to the high level decision making that led to the brilliant success of Iraqi Freedom or the more murky nation building that has followed.
Say what you like about Rumsfeld -- but on one thing I think we can all agree. He's not the guy you want to debate if you are less than well prepared.
Posted by: Norman Rogers at September 26, 2006 09:42 AM (WIqdn)
File under: All you need to know
Exerpt From MSNBC:
“I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq,” retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a forum conducted by Senate Democrats.
The whole exercise is as transparent as wet tissue paper.
Posted by: franksalterego at September 26, 2006 09:44 AM (Ad3gX)
This is pretty on the money.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:18 AM (TrMUD) .............................................I think both Generals and the comments here about the fight in Iraq are way out of line. We never needed more troops than we had because this is an asymmetrical war. What we have always needed was information. To win over an insurgency is all about knowledge of their whereabouts, their intended future actions, and their identity. This is the whole point about interrogation and the NSA surveilence. It is amazing to me that anyone would be foolish enough to be sucked in to using conventional force thinking to fight what is a guerrilla war. Romney is so far ahead in thinking about how to fight an asymmetrical war that it is amazing. These Generals are thinking only in conventional war terms which is exactly how to lose against an insurgency. We need an army of spies much more than we need more conventional troops. Romney is scary smart in his approach to the insurgency and these Generals and most of the commentors here are foolishly fighting the last war rather than fighting this war using the means neccessary to win. Why has no one talked about spying and intelligence in this thread? Its because no one here has thought through what is missing in these Generals critique. You have simply followed along whatever the lefties put out, agreeing without really analyzing what it takes to win. It is knowledge and intelligence information that is in short supply, not troops. And conventional force thinking is exactly how to get more troops killed and guarantee a military defeat. Quit being dupes for this lefty propaganda.
Posted by: pendelton at September 26, 2006 09:46 AM (NQSCc)
Our campaign in Iraq is a counter-insurgency campaign. That means it will be a slow, grinding affair so troop levels and composition will always be arguable. But frankly, all that really matters is how effectively the Iraqi forces and government fights the insurgency themselves. They are slowly taking charge in operations and until I see significant defeats of our or our allies' forces (i.e., resulting in whole units collapsing). , I cannot agree that we are losing in any sense of the term.
As for Rumsfeld being a failure who should be canned, I remember back during the first term's Quadrennial defense review (before 9/11) that people then were saying that he was a failure, because of how many people he offended over changes in funding priorities. My guess is that people couldn't handle his surprisingly forthright style when compared to the previous SecDefs. I don't think he is perfect, but I do think his ability to withstand disagreements with the military brass makes him a good fit as SecDef. The civilians are in charge and I see nothing wrong with having a civilian who runs the department and not just represent it.
Posted by: EricTheRed21 at September 26, 2006 09:52 AM (hJ9g5)
I work in a minor capacity for a medium sized corporation. I am, in short, a Little Eichmann. I like the company I work for, but it has its ups and downs, it's sensible times and silly times. Like all peons, I grumble. I would not dream, in a zillionty jillion years, of grumbling to an outsider, certainly not the media. I would have no respect for a coworker who did. I would expect the company to come down like a ton of bricks on a leaker, and I would consider that just and proper. No good can come to a company from airing its laundry in public, and a company has a right to expect its employees to wish it well and actively work for its betterment.
I'm continually shocked at the ethics of people in the government and military -- institutions presumably loftier than the grubby old corporation I work for. Bitching and moaning to outsiders is no small lapse of employee judgment. At least in the private sector, its a very grave betrayal.
I don't mean I would cover up illegal or unethical activity -- my loyalty doesn't extend that far. I mean grumbling in public about company policy and direction and upper management decisions is unthinkable in the private sector. Why is it so common in the public sector?
Posted by: S. Weasel at September 26, 2006 09:55 AM (rasT+)
Like I don't get enough of this crap from the MSM. Nice try with the "Before you blow them off as moonbats, read their testimony" head fake.
Had me going for a second.
Posted by: at September 26, 2006 10:00 AM (Vsh3q)
"Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are fighting a war in secret that threatens our democratic values."
He lost me on that quote. Nobody claiming to offer legit criticism would spout nonsense such as that.
His whole rant was amazingly free of concrete examples of his allegations as well. Reminded me of the Obama convention speech in that regard.
Is some of what he's claiming true? Probably, but one MUST suspect the motivations of this messenger based on that single quote I gave.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 26, 2006 10:08 AM (ZVOjz)
S. Weasel,
You are on target. When you talk/leak to outsiders, you are putting your political/vanity interests above that of the institution you claim to serve. These Generals mewl like kittens when they are infront of Rumsfeld. when they get out, they find a new roar in their voice.
Before 2001, the Military Brass were used to lording over the policy, and being in the public eye. Everybody remembers seeing Powell and Schwarzcopf on TV in 1991. Anybody remember seeing Dick Cheney on TV? I don't even know who the SecDef was during Clinton years. But Shinseki/Wesley Clark/Anthony Zinni were visible everywhere.
Rumsfeld walks in and shows them who is the Boss. They don't like it one bit.
Posted by: Tushar D at September 26, 2006 10:11 AM (m1bmI)
ps. Rummy is no MacNamara. I long to piss on MacNamara's grave, but I suspect Rummy will actually manage to do so!
Posted by: Sherlock at September 26, 2006 10:19 AM (pBbVV)
Maybe the term "political puppets" would be more appropo. If these Democrats wanted to hear honest opinion -- and they don't -- they wouldn't have hand-picked a pack of retired, bitter losers to echo their sentiments. Rather, they would have found a random assortment of real soldiers to say a few words...but then, a random assortment would have been far more favorable to the administration than they could have stomached.
Comparing Rumsfeld to McNamara is the wiggiest thing I've ever heard. Mac was an ignorant tower of jello. Rumsfeld isn't.
Yeah yeah, mistakes have been made. Name one war where major mistakes costing thousands of lives haven't occurred. Then, name one war that was anything like the current conflict we're facing. Then, let's talk about hindsight being 20-20 and how much more fabulous someone besides Runsfeld would have done without question. And then, maybe all this armchair quarterbacking from these biased vets would be worth listening to.
But I doubt it.
Posted by: bbeck at September 26, 2006 10:26 AM (qF8q3)
Agreed, Rumsfeld isn't sitting around with the President determining what the targets for today are, and he isn't trying to turn the military into an accounting firm.
Macnamara was not fit for the job, Rumsfeld is. You can count his quality by who his enemies are.
Kane
Posted by: Kanelin at September 26, 2006 10:27 AM (8kyvx)
Posted by: Tushar D at September 26, 2006 10:36 AM (m1bmI)
The owner of this weblog is at the White House today. He was invited there to witness the signing of a bill he helped push for. On this meaningless weblog.
Posted by: stace at September 26, 2006 10:38 AM (A56/D)
Posted by: Kanelin at September 26, 2006 10:43 AM (8kyvx)
Posted by: Joe at September 26, 2006 10:44 AM (Ukf53)
.
.
He does not comprehend the human dimension of warfare. The mission in Iraq is all about breaking the cycle of violence and the hard work to change attitudes and give the Iraqi people alternatives to the insurgency.
Yes, General Batiste is just another raging moonbat.
Posted by: slatz at September 26, 2006 10:48 AM (xG58s)
Posted by: geoff at September 26, 2006 10:49 AM (Id2DF)
Posted by: bbudd at September 26, 2006 10:52 AM (QQ9sc)
But let's not be too silly here. I am sure Rumsfeld has made mistakes, probably big ones. That said, I would love for these generals to name for me the war (or hell, just a battle) that went exactly as drawn up. Where exactly was the Battle of the Bulge in our plan to march to the Rhine? For those of you who think military success and failure is measured in casualties, consider that during that roughly 3 week battle 10,000 men died. Was Ike relieved? Marshall? Were there calls for Henry Stimson to be sacked?
If it was so clear to these genrals at the time that they were being ignored or that Rumsfeld was being dangerously dismissive of their advice, why not resign and raise a stink? I think that CBS, the NY Times and Washington Post would have given them a fair hearing.
Would replacing Rumsfeld make some sense? Possibly. I think there's an argument for fresh eyes and thoughts on a problem. But there's also an argument to be made for consistency and not changing focus or leadership if you think you are going in the right direction.
Either way this Rumsfeld thing is just a way of attacking Bush without taking any risks. And if Bush fired Rumsfeld tomorrow do you think the lefties would say, 'hey great, lets work together to make Iraq a success' or would they say, 'see this is proof that we are screwed in Iraq, the President knows it so we need to leave now'?
In the end this is the President's responsibility and he will succeed or fail with his team not the one the Democrats want.
Posted by: Drew at September 26, 2006 11:22 AM (Y2fNF)
You look at Rumsfeld's extremely successful career, and it is filled with political and commercial victories, but it remarkably short on military victories.
It's not that Rumsfeld is a bad guy, he's just doing the wrong job. And as painful as it is to "let him go" and suffer the politcal fallout for the errors in Iraq (and somebody did make some miscalculations about the war and the insurgency), we need to consolidate the successes. He is an idea man, and wars aren't theoretical. He should be an advisor or a PR person.
I don't want his career to suffer, but public service and drawing a government salary means that you have to sacrifice for the greater good. We might need a new face and new experience to demonstrate that WE ARE ADAPTING to new conditions. And we need a secdef who can admit that we need to adapt.
I mean, there are men who will spend the rest of their lives in wheelchairs, and will do so gladly knowing that they defended their country. Why is it so bad that Rumsfeld should have to limp with a bruised ego and a massive pay raise for moving back into the private sector? Wars have casualties. Why should politicians be given preferential treatment?
Plus, I think his emphasis on technology is wrongheaded. Technology is great, but there is a real problem when we have to turn over military work to private contractors to avoid the political challenge of building the military and bringing in more troops.
Posted by: Well at September 26, 2006 11:40 AM (1WdUw)
These Generals have gone to a partisan group and demanded action to remove the leadership of the Dept of Defense. Fine. Your points are noted with interest. If you read their transcripts they demand a dramatic increase in the commitment of troops, resources and money to the fight, and commitment to the conflict for the long haul. Again, fine.
There is nothing 145,000 American troops in Iraq and 20,000 American troops in Afghanistan couldn't do and do better with twice or three times the on ground manpower, resources, and money than is already committed. So let's see the Dhimmicrats insist on that. When they insist on raising the size of America's military from 1.4 Million on active duty to 2.5 Million on active duty, add the required armor, intelligence, air, and naval assets required to meet that task, including raising the Defense budget from $400 B to $1.2 Trillion annually, THEN and ONLY THEN, will I believe they are serious about defense and intend to actually fight the Long War.
What these Generals are saying is that we are fighting the War on Terror on the cheap.... and we are still winning it. The cost in men and women's lives is being paid because our Republican leadership has not made a case, and has not even asked us to sacrifice ourselves to go all out for Victory in the war. Fine. I'm upset about that too. If we accept that because we are too lame to insist our leaders wage total war against Islamofascism, that is our fault, not the Republicans, whose basic principles are to insist that government do the job with just enough funding, just enough manpower, just enough regulation, and just enough gas and guns to get the job done and nothing left over for waste.
If the Dhimmicrats insist the war is about a failure of leadership, then they better start exerting some. I want to see massive headlines in the NY Times, WaPo, and every other news machine in America demanding major increases in military spending, major increases in manpower, demands that Iran stop enriching uranium or their asses will be turned to nuclear fused glass in a month, and Dhimmicratic constituencies loudly demanding that Congress raise the age of enlistment to 55 so both they, their children, and I can join up again and do something real again for my country.
When I hear cries for these massive warfighting efforts, including the rationing, draft, and hardship imposed on every American soul to support this war, then I will agree that Dhimmicrats are leaders concerned with my safety, Republicans are doddering fools, and the American people are super geniuses who should be the only authorized leaders of the world, and smash those stupid UN kleptocrats like bugs.
While I'm listening over the chirping of crickets for these cries of outrage, I'll be supporting the only people who are actually doing anything about kicking Islamic ass, however meaqger an effort it is, and shining a spotlight on the cockroaches of fascism living in the Dhimmicratic household... the Bush administration and Donald Frickin' Rumsfeld. They may be doing it on the cheap, but they are doing it.... and they are Winning.
It will take longer, cost more in the long run, and will demand smaller sacrifices instead of large ones, but the job will eventually get done. While the crickets are chirping over the cries for a larger military, I'll be praying that the Men and Women of the United States Armed Forces continue to show the guts, determination, and courage lacking in every other segment of American society...the Courage and Fortitude to do their Duty, even when it is unpopular, underfunded, underappreciated, and underplayed by Republicans, and disavowed by Dhimmicrats.
All of us need to get a grip. We either suffer with them and get it over quick. Or we suffer not at all, and let them do their jobs with what pittances we give them, and pray that they will forgive us when they grow old and forgotten by a citizenry which knows little of what they are actually accomplishing for the World and for America. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom of religion. Freedom from the burkha and for Women's rights. And freedom from the Knife and the Sword in the night. Freedom from Kristallnacht, Islam style. Let's get out of their way!
Press on, Men. To Victory.
Subsunk
Posted by: Subsunk at September 26, 2006 11:48 AM (L52OI)
Crazy people, moonbat, and hippies don't really last too long in that environment. I can understand disagreeing with what they are saying and challenging their assertions...
But just calling them "crazy" because they disagree with your political party is... well... kind of something that you might hear from, and I don't know how else to put this, a moonbat.
Regardless of what they are saying, veterans should get a bit more respect. At the very least, they deserve to have their ideas criticized rather than their character. As far as I'm concerned, they have already proven they are men of good character.
Posted by: Well at September 26, 2006 11:57 AM (1WdUw)
Afghanistan, anyone?
You remember that country, don't you? It was the one the Soviets couldn't beat, and the liberals said would be another Vietnam.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at September 26, 2006 11:57 AM (fEcOr)
Posted by: Well at September 26, 2006 12:00 PM (1WdUw)
The only opinion I ventured in this post is that the transcript was worth reading.
FWIW, I certainly don't think Bush is "bad." I personally don't know if Rumsfeld has made enough missteps to be deemed incompetent, and have not expressed an opinion on his performance.
Elsewhere I have said that I think the invasion of Iraq, with the benefit of hindsight, seems to have been a mistake. But we are where we are, and have no choice but to finish the job.
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 12:01 PM (ycKg/)
That being said, the generals are a pretty hidebound lot and highly resistant to change. That's why they are always accused of trying to fight the last war.
Posted by: George at September 26, 2006 12:04 PM (Nv3Zp)
The commenter who calls himself "Well",
there is no need to insult others. Subsunk made a good point, and you insult him.
Posted by: Tushar D at September 26, 2006 12:04 PM (m1bmI)
Anyone who has ever been tasked to come up with a solution to a basic STEX (sandtable exercise) while in a training environment can tell you that there are myriad ways to accomplish the mission with what you've got. There always is.
So, someone pls tell me, more troops will do....WHAT, exactly? And once you've answered that, I want to know HOW they are going to do it, whatever "it" is. Are they going to do something different than what is already being done over there? Some new tactic or piece of gear? Or is their simple presence going to be enough? And don't look at me like I'm an idiot b/c the answer is so glaringly self evident. If it is, it should be ridiculously easy to explain, so I'll wait...
Let me solve this for you: We have more than enough troops over there right now. We always have. The world-wide force levels argument aside, which is a very real concern and righteous argument, more troops won't accomplish a damn thing. We own the ground, what we don't own, and never will, is the insurgent's will to fight or die trying...so let's hook 'em up.
Misha, good posts, but then I would expect nothing less from you. Turn the ground pounders loose and teach those fine, upstanding Iraqi patriots in their armed forces how to terminate with extreme prejudice. Stop pussy-footing it and stop bothering to take names. It's the same reason nobody f*cked with the Sovs like this when the Iron Curtain was still Iron. Down a civilian airliner that has strayed off course? No problem. Name the time when the Muslims started making a ruckus in one of the satellites during the Curtain era. When the enemy knows that you have the hammer, and that you know how to use it, and most importantly that you will use it, well, seems like things settle down a good bit, don't they?
Bottom line, the only way we win is to convince our enemies that they need to be more scared of us than we are of them, and the one's we can't convince, kill 'em.
As far as Rummy is concerned, yeah, the KIA count certainly weighs in heavily in his favor, but one has to wonder; considering the huge amount of anecdotal evidence that he does not listen to subordinates, is the staggeringly low KIA count b/c of him, or in spite of him? Here's one thing I DO know: if, as a leader of Marines, I habitually tune out my Plt Sgt/ Co 1st Sgt, I am an utter failure as a commander/ leader. Worse than that, I am a failure as a man and Marine. This is homicidal vanity, and I would so richly deserve to be cashiered.
Posted by: feba at September 26, 2006 12:08 PM (Wl3J8)
Posted by: Carguy at September 26, 2006 12:09 PM (PMKPL)
The pentagon has its share of careerists also with their pet billion $ programs. In time of peace it was "the" path for career advancement. Rumsfeld's cancellation of some of these sacred cows must have ruffled some feathers.
What is so discouraging is that so many of the best and brightist, who should know better, choose petty payback and ankle biting over national security in time when the nation is facing its greatest threat.
Posted by: canuck at September 26, 2006 12:26 PM (dOOjm)
Posted by: Lynn at September 26, 2006 12:33 PM (+Vle7)
Its easy. Watch me. He's a moonbat.
See how easy that was?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 26, 2006 12:53 PM (ZVOjz)
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 26, 2006 12:58 PM (ZVOjz)
Posted by: Slublog at September 26, 2006 01:08 PM (R8+nJ)
How very msm of you.
Cherry-pick the opnion you like, offer no counterpoint or analysis of the people you're quoting and then stand back and say 'Who me, biased? All I did was present someone else's views".
Can you say 'Cindy Sheehan' anyone?
Posted by: max at September 26, 2006 01:20 PM (XrQv1)
nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has
enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who
would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind
who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.”
Nicolo Machiavelli
Posted by: gibson. at September 26, 2006 01:28 PM (NatOX)
I could type up a long answer, but I'll go with a short one: modern threats, but in a conventional war. Technology isn't the solution to the problems we're having now in Iraq, aka counter-insurgency. That's the same route the Army took in Vietnam until Abrams, technology, as opposed to clear and hold. We've already got plenty of it - that we're not winning is due to something else.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 01:32 PM (TrMUD)
Infact I agree with people who says that Rumsfeld is trying to fight on the cheap. He is trying to fight with being extremely stingy about spending US blood.
$200 million spend between every US death. That is an extraordinary dollar to lives ratio.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 01:33 PM (TrMUD)
".Everybody who LOVES to critisize Rumsfeld forgets that he is waging two wars with an extraordinarily low body count. I know I know... every casuality is one too many. But compare this war to Vietnam or WWII.
Infact I agree with people who says that Rumsfeld is trying to fight on the cheap. He is trying to fight with being extremely stingy about spending US blood.
$200 million spend between every US death. That is an extraordinary dollar to lives ratio."
So far as US tactics are concerned, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Counter-insurgency requires you to fight the enemy up close, on a personal basis. In doing so, you avoid alienating the population through heavy handed firepower. Our insistence on trading firepower for lives makes perfect sense on first gut instinct, but is also countereffective to a point.
If we want to win, we'd best get less stingy about spending US blood. Now, does that mean we shoudl be cheap with our troops? Of course not. But to the extent that we carry it, it isn't a good thing for succeeding.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 01:39 PM (TrMUD)
Secretary Rumsfeld testimony, 14 May 2003
Posted by: gibson. at September 26, 2006 01:40 PM (NatOX)
MIR,
I have always been claiming on this site that US bodycount is low by any standard. But you are the first one to advocate a higher body count. Are you expecting broad support for your position?
Ok, snark aside,
So far as US tactics are concerned, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Counter-insurgency requires you to fight the enemy up close, on a personal basis. In doing so, you avoid alienating the population through heavy handed firepower. Our insistence on trading firepower for lives makes perfect sense on first gut instinct, but is also countereffective to a point.
MIR, can you site any data that the general Iraqi population is alienated? What we are seeing is low body count AND precision (as opposed to overwhelming) firepower. When US forces are fighting door-to-door (e.g. Falijah), they could have flattened building after building, and buried the insurgents alive. But in the process, they would have destroyed a lot more infrastructure, and alienated a lot more people. They took out the insurgents one by one, and still managed to have a low body count.
Firepower for Lives is a false choice. And the US forces prove that everyday.
Posted by: Tushar D at September 26, 2006 01:51 PM (m1bmI)
In Vietnam, the Army was not primarily fighting a counter-insurgency campaign. Most of the forces were deployed to engage the NVA from favorable ground in the highlands away from the main population centers on the coast. The Army Special Forces and the Marines (deployed mainly along the coast) were fighting a COIN campaign, but the primary elements in the theater (i.e. the conventional Army) were configured to fight NVA units and win a war of attrition. The US did not achieve a favorable outcome because of this strategy.
As I have followed the progress of the current campaign in Iraq, it has become apparent that the Army (not the Marines) was slow to convert to a COIN campaign and that there were probably a lot of generals and officers who were not comfortable with implementing a COIN doctrine to begin with. This would not be surprising since the Army, institutionally speaking, has spent most of the past two decades being prepared to fight large, combined-arms battles with Soviet-style forces. For understandable reasons, the Army wanted to retain the decisive power of its conventional forces even in a post-Cold War environment.
This debate has been going on while there is a self-confident, decisive SecDef. Naturally, he is going to make decisions to piss people off. But, at least defense transformation is on the agenda of the policymakers. It is unfortunate that this has to go on during a war, rather than during the more peaceful previous decade, but such is politics.
Posted by: EricTheRed21 at September 26, 2006 02:00 PM (hJ9g5)
Posted by: EricTheRed21 at September 26, 2006 02:02 PM (hJ9g5)
...Which is true. But is also part of the calculus when deciding whether to go to war. If you don't, then you don't do it - or you build up first. Wasn't possible? Well, even setting aside the fact that we could have done it after 9-11, Rumsfeld wanted us to downsize the force, not increase it, relying on technology that isn't there yet, and wouldn't help us all that much in this situation anyway.
Counterinsurgency is manpower intensive, that's just the way it is. It is manpower intensive, and it requires skillsets that our 1990s Army wasn't built for. And that isn't all Rumsfeld's fault, but it is something we need to recognize for the future. Traditionally, the Army likes to break shit and use lots of firepower. Why? Because that's what we're good at, we've got it in spades, and we've had major successes at it. It is counterproductive here.
As to who these generals are? Well, if you read the transcript, one isn't even a general. He's one of the Army's former counter-insrgency experts (I'm talking abotu Colonel Hamm) and an expert in 4th generation warfare. So the idea that he's traditional military brass and therefore in love with big tosy is far from the mark.
Now, do they go overboard on occasion and hit Democratic talking points? Yep, but hey, I don't expect political sophistication out of everybody. When I hit those points, I ran right by it. But insofar as their qualifications are concerned they're saying some things that like Misha said, hit the mark.
Would most of the things they're saying be undertaken by the Democrats? No, of course not, the latter are just political opportunists. But if you think we're doing something wrong, that's immaterial. I don't expect them to be partisan hacks on our side either.
It would be a mistake to become so defensive that we ignore potentially good advice, no matter where it comes from.
"Comparing Rumsfeld to McNamara is the wiggiest thing I've ever heard. Mac was an ignorant tower of jello. Rumsfeld isn't."
McNamara was known as perhaps the smartest and quickest guy in the Johnson Administration. He made good and bad suggestions. But on the important one, Vietnam, he was closer to the mark than the military, at least in recognizing that search and destroy wasn't working. Now, we can bitch and moan all we want about Johnson refused to expand the war, and in point of fact, I would agree with you - but the point is that the military's job isn't to set mission parameters, but to work within them (something it forgot with the Powell doctrine).
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:03 PM (TrMUD)
We may not like the notion that we are in fact at war with Islam, but that does not change the fact that we are. It may be a very long war, and Iraq is merely one of the battles. At some point, the Democrats are going to be in charge during this war, and we need to get used to that idea.
Posted by: jones at September 26, 2006 02:03 PM (lJUwT)
Rumsfeld has been arguing for this sort of focus. Yes, more firepower/troops can be helpful, but ultimately all COIN is about getting the locals to be the lead agents in defending themselves.
Posted by: EricTheRed21 at September 26, 2006 02:09 PM (hJ9g5)
In Vietnam, the Army was not primarily fighting a counter-insurgency campaign. Most of the forces were deployed to engage the NVA from favorable ground in the highlands away from the main population centers on the coast. The Army Special Forces and the Marines (deployed mainly along the coast) were fighting a COIN campaign, but the primary elements in the theater (i.e. the conventional Army) were configured to fight NVA units and win a war of attrition. The US did not achieve a favorable outcome because of this strategy.
As I have followed the progress of the current campaign in Iraq, it has become apparent that the Army (not the Marines) was slow to convert to a COIN campaign and that there were probably a lot of generals and officers who were not comfortable with implementing a COIN doctrine to begin with. This would not be surprising since the Army, institutionally speaking, has spent most of the past two decades being prepared to fight large, combined-arms battles with Soviet-style forces. For understandable reasons, the Army wanted to retain the decisive power of its conventional forces even in a post-Cold War environment.
This debate has been going on while there is a self-confident, decisive SecDef. Naturally, he is going to make decisions to piss people off. But, at least defense transformation is on the agenda of the policymakers. It is unfortunate that this has to go on during a war, rather than during the more peaceful previous decade, but such is politics."
I agree full-heartedly with everything you just said. I've read my Krepinevich. If you read between the lines you've just echoed what these guys are saying. Rumsfeld isn't adapting to what you've just laid out.
"I have always been claiming on this site that US bodycount is low by any standard. But you are the first one to advocate a higher body count. Are you expecting broad support for your position?"
Frankly, I don't give a fuck about expecting broad support, I'm just saying what I think. The American reluctance to take casualties is idealistic, but it is self-defeating when the nature of the war in question requires it. That's a societal problem that is mostly out of Rumsfeld's hands but still a problem.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:11 PM (TrMUD)
Rumsfeld has been arguing for this sort of focus. Yes, more firepower/troops can be helpful, but ultimately all COIN is about getting the locals to be the lead agents in defending themselv
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:13 PM (TrMUD)
Posted by: someone at September 26, 2006 02:17 PM (LS1TS)
Rumsfeld has been arguing for this sort of focus. Yes, more firepower/troops can be helpful, but ultimately all COIN is about getting the locals to be the lead agents in defending themselv."
Once again, I agree with everything you've just said, and that is what I meant, even if I was unclear, when I said up close and personal. And this is exactly what the people are saying in the transcript. They don't say that Rumsfeld doesn't talk about it, and he clearly does, but that when appropriations and economy of force kicked in, it is nevertheless these venues that were coming in short. Judging by the performance of the Iraqi troops in Falluja the first time, that might make sense.
Perhaps now we're on the ball now - I hope so. But nevertheless that was a pretty big mistake the first time around.
- that Rumsfield
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:18 PM (TrMUD)
Yeah, have fun with that.
Posted by: someone at September 26, 2006 02:18 PM (LS1TS)
But, congratulations, you found one thing to latch onto and dismiss everything else.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:24 PM (TrMUD)
As for equipment shortages, is it because of the SecDef that sufficient equipment isn't in theater, or is it because the deparment regs and procurement process is slow, or is it because some of this stuff was made recently and it is hard to ramp up the production process for a new product?
I love how Colonel Hamm tries to compare production in the World War II-era to modern production. Today's equipment is far more sophisticated than what was available in those days so naturally it will be difficult to mass-produce a safe, reliable product given all of the testing that would be needed and then train all of the personnel in the field to service it properly when it gets to them.
Posted by: EricTheRed21 at September 26, 2006 02:28 PM (hJ9g5)
Does saying that take political willpower and courage? Yep. Is it wrong? No.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:30 PM (TrMUD)
There's no way in hell that any change in war plans that is sure to cause a uptick in the death rate for soldiers is going to implemented becuase it is simply unacceptable. Got any other alternatives?
Posted by: Shawn, but not lowercased at September 26, 2006 02:30 PM (Tgpe/)
I agree that we should take and hold territory, but the forces most suited for that would be Iraqi forces. No matter how much training we have for counter-insurgency, our grunts do not speak Arabic. Imagine if you replaced all of Compton's police with cops from Hamburg...how effective would they be?
I agree completely. And that seemed to be one of the beefs that those three officers had as well: Our efforts to train the Iraqis are being hampered by micro-managing in Washington, buffoons trying to fight a war on the cheap and shuffling funds around on a basis of current fads and political expediency rather than the mission itself.
Until we have those Iraqi forces in place, however, we have to do the holding, and that means staying in one place rather than running from brush fire to brush fire, re-taking the same ground umpteen times. The Iraqis will never become confident around us if they suspect that the friends securing their village today might be gone tomorrow, leaving them at the mercy of insurgents pissed off about their collaboration.
Question: after the Iraq lesson, would you think that we could plan better for, say, Iran, and be MORE successful or do you think the Iranians would be MORE successful after seeing how to hinder an occupation?
That's a damn good question, and the answer depends entirely upon whether we learn from the mistakes that have been made (and yes, mistakes happen, but that doesn't mean that one should never mention them in polite company) and adapt accordingly.
The future will tell whether we or the enemy learned the most. I hope it'll be us.
Posted by: Misha I at September 26, 2006 02:35 PM (S0K0u)
Cherry-pick the opnion you like, offer no counterpoint or analysis of the people you're quoting and then stand back and say 'Who me, biased? All I did was present someone else's views".
Can you say 'Cindy Sheehan' anyone?
Sorry, Max, I just don't know enough to have an opinion, and you have no basis for assuming the opinions expressed in the transcript are those that I "like."
Yesterday, this story was all over the place. My initial inclination was to assume the generals were partisan hacks performing for their Democrat allies in Congress. Then I bumped into the transcript, and thought their testimony was interesting, and they did not sound to me like partisan hacks. There was nothing at AOSHQ on this major story of the day, so I put up a link to the actual testimony that was the subject of numerous articles.
Looks like people indeed found it interesting. Opinions about Rumsfeld, and the generals, appear to be all over the place, even amongst the AOSHQ faithful. After reading this thread, I still don't know what to think about Rummy.
What does this have to do with Cindy Sheehan?
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 02:40 PM (ycKg/)
Posted by: Gus at September 26, 2006 02:44 PM (Co1M7)
The pernicious effect of casualty counting is really just one thing, I simply brought it up because it was said by someone above. I also said it was a societal problem that had be dealt around, and probably couldn't be eliminated in the short term. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't say the truth around here, namely that the military's job is to accomplish the objective, not minimize casualties.
Right now it would be hard to sell, because politically we're weak, in part due to mistakes that we've made. But it is still something we should keep in mind - if only for the future when we're politically strong enough to make that argument. Would people have got it, for example, during World War II? Yep.
"I love how Colonel Hamm tries to compare production in the World War II-era to modern production. Today's equipment is far more sophisticated than what was available in those days so naturally it will be difficult to mass-produce a safe, reliable product given all of the testing that would be needed and then train all of the personnel in the field to service it properly when it gets to them."
I agree with you. Like I said, sometimes they go off into Democratic talking points. The fact is we have the best supplied military, per capita, in military history.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:44 PM (TrMUD)
Posted by: Gus at September 26, 2006 02:45 PM (Co1M7)
Generally I don't really lack onto particular people, but given the circumstances, Lt. Gen. Petraeas' opinion is pretty important. He's the guy they brought in to ramp up training after it was clear that the previous effort wasn't working. If he said that he hadn't gotten enough support, even after the prior failure, that'd be pretty big.
Course, we've also got a big problem with the police. They're just as important as the Iraqi Army and most of the stuff coming out of IRaq says they're even more fucked up, completely corrupt and politicized. I'd like to know the opinion of whoever's in charge of that. But the thing is, it is hard to know - as the people in the transcripts said, our effort in Iraq isn't as unified as it could be, and unity of command is huge in this stuff. The police have to work with the Army have to work with the civliians have to work with the, etc, etc, etc.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:50 PM (TrMUD)
What the Dems are really doing is not going after Rumsfeld - they're readying themselves for 2008 (with some immediate fallout as well, I would guess). Note this is coming on the heels of Kerry's bold new five-part plan for addressing the GWoT.There are five principal priorities that demand immediate action: (1) redeploy from Iraq, (2) re-commit to Afghanistan, (3) reduce our dependence on foreign oil, (4) reinforce our homeland defense, and (5) restore America's moral leadership in the world. These "5 R's"-if you want to call them that-- are bold steps Democrats will take to strengthen our national security, and that the Republicans who have set the agenda today resist to our national peril.Earlier in the Howard University speech from which this quote was taken he said:ust recently, Donald Rumsfeld - the man who should have been fired as Secretary of Defense long ago - Donald Rumsfeld gave a low and ugly speech in which he smeared those who dissent from a catastrophic policy, and then spoke of "moral confusion."It's looking like the Dems are pulling it together this time around.
Posted by: geoff at September 26, 2006 02:51 PM (Id2DF)
1. If he continue to insist on not only the current Army levels, but actually decreasing them. He's backed off of that, but originally we were supposed to get rid of another 1 or 2 divisions.
2. If these guys are right and he's still refusing to adjust to the current problems, as opposed to the agenda he came in with.
I don't mind making mistakes, but not learning from them is wasteful.
Course, this depends on whether or not you think he is or not, and obviously we're working on imperfect information. Everybody's got to make their own decision.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 02:58 PM (TrMUD)
In the Gulf War, we lost a few hundred to take out Iraq, largely from the sky. This time, we're going door-to-door, constantly in the streets, trying to build a country, not just destroy one.
How could we sacrifice more to suit your plan, arm our men with knives and make them take on insurgents in one-on-one cage matches?
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at September 26, 2006 03:02 PM (fEcOr)
Posted by: dusty at September 26, 2006 03:02 PM (MDkjt)
Everyones picking on the poor Artillery...
Yeah, I know waste of money for insurgents...but they are pretty sweet.
Since they cancelled the program, do you think they'd give me one of them? Its not like they're using it. What would I use it for? Uhhhh...well, I dunno, I'd come up with something, what? Use your imagination.
Posted by: Sinistar at September 26, 2006 03:06 PM (GTXln)
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 03:07 PM (TrMUD)
Posted by: Tushar D at September 26, 2006 03:10 PM (m1bmI)
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at September 26, 2006 03:13 PM (fEcOr)
This is pretty interesting for anyone who wants to read it:
http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2006/09/civil-war-at-pentagon.html
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 03:17 PM (TrMUD)
What, is Ace going liberal on us?
Please note that Ace did not post this. And discussing a contrary viewpoint on military strategy is not ordinarily considered "going liberal."
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 03:18 PM (ycKg/)
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 03:20 PM (TrMUD)
Then you call again, and you say, it's been 6 months and the president wants to know what the deal is with the airport road. And he says, we're working on it and yeah, we got everything we need. So you're thinking, this motherfucker is shining me on. But, what the fuck, this is only the global war on terror, this is only a clash of civilizations, this is only a situation where failure is not an option. So you give him another six months. And you get the same story. So you say, let me see if I got this right. You have enough troops, you have everything you need, but after a year you haven't secured the road to the airport? Right. So, are you telling me that the troops are of low quality? NO. Are you telling me that they're poorly trained? NO. Are you telling me that they're poorly led? NO. SO WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM? No answer, and you don't press for one, and you wait another fucking year before the road is finally secure.
And from this we are to draw two conclusions: one, Rumsfeld is a smart, tireless, hands-on, detail-oriented leader; and two, we have enough troops in Iraq. And we do draw these conclusions, but only if we're as clueless as George Bush.
Posted by: easterpig at September 26, 2006 03:23 PM (U2d3y)
The last is the biggest screw up. We would secure a town, gain allies through careful diplomacy of Special Force troops with tribal leaders, and then we would pull out. Then Baathists and al Qaeda in Mesopotamia would sweep in and kill all our allies. This happened again and again. All the good work of building alliances of Special Force troops squandered due to lack of manpower.
Posted by: Joe at September 26, 2006 03:42 PM (+GRGs)
Posted by: DR at September 26, 2006 03:52 PM (Se0QB)
Posted by: The Commissar at September 26, 2006 03:53 PM (eo/3J)
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 04:07 PM (ycKg/)
I totally agree that Subsunk is making a good point.
I think the problem here is that there is too much politics going on. I think that is part of Rumsfeld's problem. His reluctance to accept responsibility for his miscalculations is pure politics. And domestic American electoral politics at that.
The whole decision to put private contractors into Iraq to serve in combat roles is so that we can lowball the number of troops needed to complete our objectives. Some people like private contractors, but they don't follow the same rules and then we get stuck with the fallout. Our soldiers get blamed for lawless behavior of private contractors.
It's politcally expedient to do it. Costs a ton of money. But it has the results are predictable: "Rumsfeld is so great. If we called up tons of troops, we'd lose the next election. And if we lose the election, we might someday lose the war." It's a narrow slice of the population that is served by this type of leadership.
Posted by: Well at September 26, 2006 04:10 PM (1WdUw)
Posted by: DR at September 26, 2006 04:11 PM (Se0QB)
Yeah, and flatten everything in a four block radius!
It would be like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, pure devastation all around, and the damn cricket starts chirping again, and I go insane. Then Porky Pig jumps out and says Th-Th-Th-Th-That's All Folks!
Posted by: Sinistar at September 26, 2006 04:11 PM (GTXln)
Commissar:
No shit. I'm going to stop reading your frickin' blog. Gets me in trouble every time. You have an ugly habit of thinking for yourself, and frankly, I am fed up with that.
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 04:21 PM (ycKg/)
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 04:24 PM (ycKg/)
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 04:25 PM (ycKg/)
Excitable Andy picked up on your post. Check out the main entry i just posted on the front page.
Posted by: Jack M. at September 26, 2006 04:29 PM (Jb1EJ)
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 04:31 PM (ycKg/)
Posted by: DR at September 26, 2006 04:38 PM (Se0QB)
Had you bothered to read anything, you would know that before the war they were active duty military officers who were following orders, not private citizens as they now are. Officers on active duty do not show up at Congressional hearings to criticize the Commander in Chief or the Secretary of Defense.
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 04:51 PM (ycKg/)
Posted by: DR at September 26, 2006 04:56 PM (Se0QB)
Posted by: geoff at September 26, 2006 04:59 PM (Id2DF)
2) I here all this complaining about armored vehicles and how we need a lighter military, yadda yadda yadda. Well, training the locals to police themselves and to build an effective army doesn't happen by magic overnight. You need boots on the ground to hold the peace until they are ready and able. WE don't have enough troops there. And frankly, while we've been waiting for the Iraqis to get there shit together, too many of our lightly armored troops have been murdered or crippled by IEDs. Armor protects them. That is the whole point.
Posted by: angel at September 26, 2006 05:02 PM (0IPtN)
Posted by: DR at September 26, 2006 05:03 PM (Se0QB)
Let's just total up all casualties:
Vietnam wounded & killed: 304,000+58,000 = 362,000
Iraq wounded & killed: 20,000 + 3000 = 23,000
Posted by: geoff at September 26, 2006 05:12 PM (Id2DF)
Posted by: Sinistar at September 26, 2006 05:13 PM (GTXln)
My comment was in response to the following remark by you:
"The only opinion I ventured in this post is that the transcript was worth reading"
and not to your original post.
I felt your comment quoted above was disingenious, because it ignored the fact that you, as we all do, chose to post on something which in some sense reflects your underlying beliefs, in this case the belief that invading Iraq was a mistake.
I don't have a problem with your having that point of view (although I think it is based on 20/20 hindsight and on assumptions that different choices would have led to different results, when there's no way of knowing if that's correct) because we're all entitled to our point of view.
But when you chose to link an article which in effect, if not directly, helps your point of view (in general if not in every detail) it hits the wrong note with me for you to say 'all I did was link the article'.
And that's why I used the 'Cindy Sheehan' analogy. The msm chose to publicize her campaign, solely because her views coincided with theirs, and yet, if challenged, they would claim that all they were doing was 'reporting the news'. But in fact what they were doing was cherry-picking a particlar story that could be used to further their point of view.
I'm used to that type of behavior from the msm, and I don't at all equate your posting this article to the msm's conduct, but I do think it would have less disingenious for you to say something along the lines of "I found this article interesting because it reflects some of the concerns I have about the war in Iraq."
And the fact that Andi thinks you're on his side only goes to show that the anti-Bush crowd, not unreasonably, thinks you're on their side. Or in other words, they think that by linking the article, without comment or criticism, you are using the msm's Cindy Sheehan approach of letting someone else say what you think.
Posted by: max at September 26, 2006 05:17 PM (jF15v)
Posted by: roc ingersol at September 26, 2006 05:21 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: angel at September 26, 2006 05:23 PM (0IPtN)
Anyone who doesn't know that Generals are POLITICIANS, and hence fully susceptible to forming incorrect, politically motivated conclusions, is a complete idiot.
Might as well call them "baby killers" or something.
And talking is exactly the same as screaming. Some logic there.
Posted by: bbeck at September 26, 2006 05:27 PM (qF8q3)
Posted by Michael at September 26, 2006 02:40 PM ----- MICHAEL: So to help you decide what to think, you decide to consider this leftist propaganda bullshit. Tell me do you like it chunky or creamy? My guess is chunky, because Sheehan dishes out the creamy bullshit style. The huge chunks of bullshit come directly from the DNC., like these quoted statements you've posted above.
Posted by: pendelton at September 26, 2006 06:40 PM (NQSCc)
Personally if I saw Andrew Sullivan I'd kick him in the balls and put panties on his head.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 06:46 PM (AyhOd)
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 06:49 PM (AyhOd)
And the fact that Andi thinks you're on his side only goes to show that the anti-Bush crowd, not unreasonably, thinks you're on their side. Or in other words, they think that by linking the article, without comment or criticism, you are using the msm's Cindy Sheehan approach of letting someone else say what you think.
I get your point, Max, but I'll say one more time -- regardless of my views about the invasion of Iraq (which I freely concede are totally a hindsight perspective), I don't know what to think about Rumsfeld. I just was interested in the testimony and the apparent sincerity of the men giving it, regardless of whether they were being used as tools by the Dems. Plus, Ace was going to be busy in the morning so I figured the post would give people some fresh content to chew on early in the day and keep his traffic up. It worked.
The fact that Andy thinks I am on his side means nothing other than that he is a dumbshit. I doubt he even noticed that the link was put up by a guest blogger.
It seems to me that we ought to be able to consider differing opinions on military strategy without being accused of some anti-Bush agenda. I voted for Bush twice and have never regretted it, especially in view of the alternatives. I've been voting Republican ever since Nixon was first elected President and have never in my life voted for a Democrat for any office.
(I confess to sitting on the sidelines when Dole ran.)
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 06:49 PM (LPlsm)
Yep. Furthermore, winning is the best way to get votes.
Posted by: MlR at September 26, 2006 06:55 PM (AyhOd)
Posted by: DR at September 26, 2006 07:15 PM (Se0QB)
Posted by: BrewFan at September 26, 2006 08:01 PM (P4zSX)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 26, 2006 08:12 PM (A/NcB)
Of course, if it had been Ace posting this, he wouldn't have been a big Michaelesque pussy by not having an opinion of his own, or at least some comedy to offer on the side. But, whatcha gonna do...
Posted by: sandy burger at September 26, 2006 08:32 PM (Cpse7)
That doesn't mean we should listen to them. It only means they are different kind of Bush-hating animal. Fuck 'em.
Here in Assachusetts, we have a former Republican running as an Independent in the race for governor. The man, Chriisty Mijos, is no liberal moonbat. But he's still a fucking jerk. He has a bone to pick with Mitt Romney all because he felt he was slighted when Romney took office.
I think he expected a job in Romney's administration. Romney recognized that Mijos was a kook and wanted nothing to do with him. (Sounds like Richard Clarke, no?)
Because of personal reasons, Mijos is speniding millions of dollars of his own money to stick it to Mitt via Romney's Lt. Governor, Kerry Healey. Mijos is a douchebag no matter what his political ideology.
By your logic, Michael, I should take a person such as Mijos seriously because he's not a moonbat. As usual, your logic is fundamentally flawed.
Posted by: Bart at September 26, 2006 08:38 PM (DIU6q)
Posted by: Tushar D at September 26, 2006 08:43 PM (9ULFg)
Posted by: BrewFan at September 26, 2006 09:04 PM (P4zSX)
Some of you guys are starting to embarass yourselves. You are showing the same sort of mindless message discipline that we lampoon the Kos Kids for.
Michael, why not just admit you shouldn't have linked the commissar here. He isn't really in step with most of the regulars here. I know you RINO's like to stick together but there is a time and place for everything.
So Brew, you're saying that the link to the transcript was wrong because I found it on the blog of someone who is not "really in step" with prevailing opinion here?
Why don't you think that over for awhile. I know you're not that stupid.
BTW, I personally am not "really in step" with the rabid atheists at Politburo Diktat. The Commissar will vouch for me on this. They are all going to hell and I have told them so. I'm sort of a Christian troll over there. But we get along just fine.
By your logic, Michael, I should take a person such as Mijos seriously because he's not a moonbat. As usual, your logic is fundamentally flawed.
Bart, where the fuck are you getting "my logic" advocating that non-moonbat jerks should be taken seriously? I'm saying that retired generals who have devoted their lives to this country and have subject matter expertise are worth a listen, even if they disagree with our administration. Is that some sort of radical concept for you?
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 09:14 PM (LPlsm)
Michael,
Would that that were so. One of the major problems with the msm/dems/bdsers is that we can't have that debate because they refuse to do anything except throw stones, cherry-pick facts, use 20/20 hindsight, make up stuff, call people names etc etc etc.
If nothing else, notice how quickly Andi picked up on your post and put the most partisan, anti-Bush spin on it that he could.
We all know (or should know) that the msm/dems/bdsers behave like that by now, and it's a real shame, because it makes it far more difficult for people who are acting in good faith to understand whether we're doing things right or making mistakes (in Iraq or elsewhere) in the war on Islamofascist terror.
And it also means imo that we Republicans have to realize that our having an honest debate among ourselves about Iraq may well play into the msm/dems/bdsers hands.
What should we do about that? I don't know. I don't mind having a debate amongst ourselves as long as those who are listening in play fair, but we know that they won't do that. And it's not like they allow debate within their ranks at all - see what's been done to Lieberman.
And if the dems/msm/bdsers can use a division in our ranks to win in November then we're in much bigger trouble than we may be now.
My suggestion is that we stay steadfast, and make it clear that we're going to see this one out, but at the same time, be willing to learn from experience and constructive criticism.
I think this was an interesting post. Certainly more interesting than arguing about evolution - Sandy Burger
I for one think an ID/evolution thread is long overdue and can't wait for the next one. (hint, hint Michael)
Are you guys at any point going to stop attacking Michael? - Tushar D
First, you have to give us a reason why we should when we're having so much fun.
Second, my big argument with him was not over his pov on Iraq. I hope I made that clear, but perhaps your comment wasn't directed to me.
Posted by: max at September 26, 2006 09:38 PM (210f1)
Why don't you think that over for awhile. I know you're not that stupid.
I thought it over and I've concluded that as a guest blogger here, you are tone deaf. Back to the <a href="http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com">minor leagues</a> you go. You need to work on your game a little.
Posted by: BrewFan at September 26, 2006 09:39 PM (P4zSX)
I consider myself a "regular" here, albiet a sometimes contrarian one. Unless Ace bans somebody whom he considers a troll, doncha think there oughta be, ah, "freedom of speech" to express conservative viewers that aren't perfectly in sync with the groupthink you advocate?
I thought it was the leftists and the imams who enforced political correctness. Sheesh.
Besides., look at the length of this thread. What's better than healthy debate?
Posted by: Redhand at September 26, 2006 09:45 PM (7G9b2)
Don't worry, Tushar. Michael *likes* it.
Why don't you think that over for awhile. I know you're not that stupid.
I have thought it over and I've concluded that you, as a guest blogger here, should quit while you're ahead.
Posted by: BrewFan at September 26, 2006 09:48 PM (P4zSX)
Posted by: BrewFan at September 26, 2006 09:51 PM (P4zSX)
Posted by: BrewFan at September 26, 2006 09:55 PM (P4zSX)
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 10:04 PM (LPlsm)
Thanks for the kind words, Tushar. However, Brew speaks the truth. We have been giving each other shit forever, and no ill will is implied.
Posted by: Michael at September 26, 2006 10:09 PM (LPlsm)
What's so effing frustrating about the Iraq war is not just the US casualties, the apparent stalemate and lack of strategic direction, etc., but the divisiveness it has sown at home.
I realize this comment assumes (perhaps pathetically) that the Dems wouldn't find some excuse to do their patented, Vietnam quagmire, cut and run routine in Afghanistan but it would have been "nice," shall we say, if the country was more united in the GWOT. The Nation definitely needs to be more mobilized in this effort, given the opponents we face. (Of course, one can easily say that about the Democrats in the 1864 presidential election, too ;-)
My hope is that the Repubs keep both Houses, of course, and that this serves as some kind of mandate for a real increase in forces over there to get the job done. I don't see how we can let up, either, because I am confident Iran needs to be really intimidated to back down on its nuclear program.
These are sure as hell troubling times we live in. There are moments when I wish we could turn the clock back to 1989, and re-do the whole post Cold War thing, beginning with a Bubba defeat in 1992. Oh, well, I'll settle for keeping both Houses in 2006.
Posted by: Redhand at September 26, 2006 11:02 PM (7G9b2)
Posted by: Aaron at September 26, 2006 11:02 PM (I0fLi)
Speaking of overstretched, how long has it been since we had a thread devoted to bbeck's tits?
Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2006 12:02 AM (LPlsm)
You should all stop fighting each other and go watch your personal copy of Patton. Just got it for my birthday and it fucking still kicks ass. My dad used to refer to it as a "training film."
Posted by: Curtis Lemay at September 27, 2006 12:11 AM (0LIag)
And in this case, Sully in particular, given how Ace tears into him, and peoples intense hatred of The Heartache. Its not the debate thats the issue, I think its the fact that like it or not, we're all invested in AoS on some level, and when Sully uses AoS as a tool for his agenda, it gets taken personally big time.
Posted by: Sinistar at September 27, 2006 12:31 AM (GTXln)
Posted by: OCBill at September 27, 2006 12:57 AM (LxU8h)
Sinistar, I said this in a thread above, and I'll say it again here.
I will go to my grave with the vile stain of guilt from having been the cause of a Sully link I did not intend for this to happen, but I must accept responsibility for the consequences of my irresponsible guest-blogging. I do not expect you to forgive me; my sin is far too great. You are entitled to revile me as the most miserable guest-blogger ever to appear on the intertubes.
The good news is that I believe in the unconditional love of Jesus, so I have that going for me.
Plus, check out Ace's sitemeter.
Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2006 01:23 AM (LPlsm)
If I had tits, and didn't gag at the utterance of this phrase. . . . .
I'd blow you.
But you won't get no facial.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at September 27, 2006 01:55 AM (QTv8u)
Oh, I will hate you now, forever and ever amen. Or whatever....meh.
Jesus might, I dont.
(Pic of Michael crying) No Michael, you can't have unconditional sinistar love. (Inset Pic of Sinistar with a big cartoon heart) Not yours.
Nah, I was a little annoyed, I'm over it.
Posted by: Sinistar at September 27, 2006 02:16 AM (GTXln)
No, because...
Some of you guys are starting to embarass yourselves. You are showing the same sort of mindless message discipline that we lampoon the Kos Kids for.
...he's a blithering idiot...
Plus, check out Ace's sitemeter.
...he's a self-praising egomaniac who's taking credit that's not his, and...
Speaking of overstretched, how long has it been since we had a thread devoted to bbeck's tits?
...he's a perverted creepy little weasel.
But don't take my word for it. Knowing that his opinion's heartily endorsed by Andrew Sullivan should be enough to prove all three.
Posted by: bbeck at September 27, 2006 09:15 AM (qF8q3)
Posted by: pendelton at September 27, 2006 12:53 PM (NQSCc)
Which was the only good part of this, taking me off that particular hook.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 27, 2006 12:59 PM (7A1vs)
All you have to know about Rumsfeld is that he has fought expanding the size of the Army. He has never acknowledged that more troops are needed for the commitments we have, even if force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan stay steady.
His happy horseshit is why someone on a 4 year enlistment will do two or even three 15 month tours in theater, with about a year in between.
Believe me, being in Iraq sucks, even as a highly paid contractor who does not go out as a bullet magnet every day.
If you have to go out on fire and IED-drawing patrols
everyday and get paid 20K a year, while they are cutting the VA budget, it REALLY sucks.
A reasonable SOD would have recognized that these multiple lengthy tours are an intolerable burden on many if not most soldiers and families.
This is taking care of our troops?
Calling him McNamara gives him too much credit - at least McNamara had second thoughts and repented, and nobody can say we didn't have a big enough Army at the time - Vietnam draftees and enlistees did ONE one-year tour.
He's the worst kind of fool - the kind convinced of his own brilliance. Diagnosis: must rule out Alzheimer's
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe at September 27, 2006 02:46 PM (nAvcg)
Posted by: DR at September 27, 2006 02:47 PM (Se0QB)
Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2006 03:22 PM (ycKg/)
Posted by: Davebo at September 27, 2006 03:56 PM (vdjgh)
Go in peace, my brother, and always fight for victory no matter how politically incorrect it may be.
Posted by: DR at September 27, 2006 05:48 PM (Se0QB)
Nothing is over.
Nothing.
The commenter called Green Zone Cafe is a douche bag.
Okay, now it's over.
Posted by: Bart at September 27, 2006 06:11 PM (0IQMJ)
Posted by: DR at September 27, 2006 06:20 PM (Se0QB)
Posted by: Slublog at September 27, 2006 06:22 PM (p6AIV)
I promise, Brother DR, that I will never waiver from my commitment to speak the truth.
You are also a douche bag.
See?
Now its over.
Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2006 06:36 PM (LPlsm)
Posted by: DR at September 27, 2006 06:40 PM (Se0QB)
Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at September 27, 2006 06:43 PM (0IQMJ)
Posted by: Michael at September 27, 2006 06:45 PM (LPlsm)
Posted by: Slublog at September 27, 2006 06:51 PM (p6AIV)
Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at September 27, 2006 06:55 PM (0IQMJ)
Posted by: DR at September 27, 2006 07:04 PM (Se0QB)
Pendleton, there is something obsessively noxious about bringing them up all...the...time, particularly in an unrelated thread. Michael needs to crawl back in his hole, located just above Sully's desk chair.
As for you, Michael, if you keep your face shut where I'm concerned I'll do you the courtesy I do other similar scumbags; I'll ignore you. I'd rather not waste Ace's bandwidth kicking you around. It's dull.
Posted by: bbeck at September 28, 2006 01:51 AM (qF8q3)
From a casual visitors' perspective, seems like your commenters here know what they like - hating moonbats - and want you to stop providing information that runs contrary to the purpose of hating moonbats, such as overlap between moonbat criticisms and the criticisms of non-moonbats.
To be a little clearer: stop fu*king with their heads by providing "interesting" things. Give them stupid moonbats who hate America. That's what they want from you. If they wanted education, they'd go back to school.
Since we both know that the above is basically true - have you thought about how this reflects on the value of Ace's ongoing project here and the community it has created? Have you thought about whether you fit in?
I don't think you do. There's an instant litmus test: you listened to someone criticize Rumsfeld, and you didn't hate them for it immediately.
You don't belong.
Posted by: glasnost at September 29, 2006 11:48 PM (viRzD)
Posted by: Martin Trowbridge at November 12, 2006 06:20 PM (WlpHx)
Posted by: replica handbags at February 27, 2007 10:17 AM (BKLTO)
online car insurance ireland
online car insurance qoutes
online car insurance qoute
Posted by: NJKwerftgf at March 08, 2007 01:35 AM (i2+bV)
online car insurance quotes in ireland
online cheap car insurance
online cheapest car insurance in uk
Posted by: Jvwdfvb at March 09, 2007 10:41 AM (/FQjP)
tesco car insurance online
tesco car insurance online quote
kit car insurance online quote
Posted by: BVYUlvb at March 09, 2007 04:00 PM (B4GXw)
Posted by: Ƚо at January 30, 2009 02:51 AM (hXNNS)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 04:26 AM (xpuiO)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 11:17 AM (xpuiO)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:37 PM (xpuiO)
Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 04:14 AM (C/zDM)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 14, 2010 08:51 PM (z/+zB)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 17, 2010 09:07 PM (LF5A3)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 18, 2010 12:01 PM (AzPu+)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 19, 2010 07:14 PM (zAS0W)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 22, 2010 01:11 PM (cnbfb)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 23, 2010 05:20 PM (6vWAl)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 25, 2010 07:20 AM (G/wLD)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 25, 2010 12:11 PM (1qg2d)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 26, 2010 08:29 AM (S9MR8)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 26, 2010 01:19 PM (y/ueI)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 26, 2010 05:44 PM (HtkcW)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 27, 2010 02:41 AM (r40Ic)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 27, 2010 07:45 AM (/FCjV)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 27, 2010 12:22 PM (sVyWj)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 27, 2010 09:25 PM (hjQKJ)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 28, 2010 07:35 AM (NLEl5)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 28, 2010 04:56 PM (r4A4Z)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 29, 2010 08:14 PM (qM6us)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 30, 2010 12:46 AM (Cs+i6)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 30, 2010 10:28 AM (xdkGR)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at January 31, 2010 05:15 AM (pDixW)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 01, 2010 12:23 PM (kXppc)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 01, 2010 04:43 PM (gEHDW)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 02, 2010 01:42 AM (idzia)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 02, 2010 07:36 AM (jtqtQ)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 03, 2010 07:05 AM (atVB/)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 04, 2010 07:05 AM (/h/CQ)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 04, 2010 11:44 AM (Rvj5j)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 04, 2010 10:06 PM (mCFVV)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 05, 2010 02:56 AM (rRfgJ)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 06, 2010 04:31 PM (dogIw)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 07, 2010 08:51 PM (I+ptX)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 08, 2010 08:27 PM (9NPqj)
Posted by: HsvsRsvsesv at February 09, 2010 06:51 AM (wPHEZ)
Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.1007 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0142 seconds, 263 records returned.
Page size 213 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.
Dale's ECB
Election Projection
Federal Review
Real Clear Politics
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Zogby
FoxNews Polls
Sabato/Crystal Ball
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)