The Defense Secretary We Have

[adios]

Kristol in this piece sums up my feelings about Rumsfeld and yeah I know that Cheney called Rumsfeld the best Defense Secretary we've ever had. I guess I really don't understand Bush's loyalty to this man, a man who advised him so poorly.



The Defense Secretary We Have
From the December 15, 2004 Washington Post: Our soldiers deserve a better defense secretary.
by William Kristol
12/15/2004 3:25:00 PM


"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
in a town hall meeting with soldiers
at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8

ACTUALLY, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe--it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task--and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

"Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues."

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.

The Defense Secretary We Have (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/033dyhas.asp)

[Felix_Nietsche]

it is not much better than trying to read a post that is in ALL CAPS.....

[Hack]

Bring back William Cohen. He was a good SecDef.

[zerosum]

N/M = no message

[ThaSaltCracka]

Clearly Rummy is in over his head. I don't think he knew what he was doing from day one.

[Hack]

Well, I wouldn't go that far.

He did, after all, have previous experience in the same job- SecDef under Ford.

I do agree that he was not prepared for fighting the Iraq war, but he was definitely prepared for the job in general.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
....but he was definitely prepared for the job in general.

[/ QUOTE ] nothing he has done has proved this to me.

[andyfox]

One of the things I think people like about President Bush is that he comes across as a modest public servant. It was one advantage he had over Senator Kerry.

Contrast that perception with the arrogance that Rumsfeld projects. I was amazed at the "shock" people professed when they found out the question that Rumsfeld whiffed on was something of a plant. Shouldn't we be more shocked at the arrogant, ignorant answer? Kristol thinks so, and when the influrential Republicans like Kirstol start to call for his resignation, one would think it might happen.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Andy, it really should happen. I have zero confidence in his leadership.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Bring back William Cohen. He was a good SecDef.

[/ QUOTE ]
F'ing hilarious, man. You're kidding right?

[Hack]

No I'm not.

[Hack]

No I'm not. He didn't get hundreds of troops killed in a war, and he's even a Republican.

[Hack]

Maybe I should amend "prepared" to "qualified".

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I was amazed at the "shock" people professed when they found out the question that Rumsfeld whiffed on was something of a plant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understood that bruhaha. If it's a legitimate question (which it was) who cares how it originated.

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't we be more shocked at the arrogant, ignorant answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

[ QUOTE ]
Kristol thinks so, and when the influrential Republicans like Kirstol start to call for his resignation, one would think it might happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I was calling for it last spring /images/graemlins/smile.gif. We don't agree on many things in the political spectrum but I recall a post you made about Rumsfeld stating that nobody could have forseen the insurgency or some such where you stated that obviously this claim was bogus (which it was). That was it for me regarding Rumsfeld.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
No I'm not. He didn't get hundreds of troops killed in a war, and he's even a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's pretty hard to go to war w/o troops getting killed. That tends to happen in a war. We happened not to go to war during Cohen's tenure. Aside from that, I was always put off by his seeming complete lack of knowledge about the respective competencies of our various armed services. Specifically, we had Marines stationed in various places doing nothing but sitting in bunkers, with no intention that they would do anything else. Marines are not meant to sit in bunkers. They are meant to storm a beach, take a hill, etc. Occupation, in general, is the Army's job. But he seemed completely unaware of that. And, yes, it did cost lives because Marines aren't equipped for it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yup, my brother basically said that same thing.

[Utah]

Kristol was also whining about Afghan being a quagmire a week before the Taliban were destroyed.

Arrogance and competency are two different things. At the end of the day, Rumsfield brilliantly executed two wars, has lost only 1000+ soldiers in 3 years of combat, and has brought Iraq to the point of elections in 1 month.

Is he good or bad? I dont know. But, his results have been excellent on their face.

[andyfox]

The results of the invasion were excellent from the standpoint of getting rid of Hussein and his henchmen. But the post-invasion events have not been excellent, largely because Rumsfled ignored planning because he's philosophically opposed to it. He felt negatives would be brought up and this would mitigate against the invasion. As a result, terrible mistakes were made, such as disbanding the army and allowing looting.

[Utah]

"He felt negatives would be brought up and this would mitigate against the invasion"

Okay. Lets say that is true. Then, from a tactical standpoint, you are arguing that Rummy brilliantly achieved his goal because that "planning" ran counter to his goals. By ignoring the "planning" Rummy got what he wanted, achieved his main objectives, and suffered relatively minor setbacks.

Iraq is about to hold democratic elections and we are worried about some post war looting? Boy, if looting is one of the worst condemnations of the administration then I think they should be given high marks.

[Hack]

The military is for defense, not for offense.

I'm sorry but it's not my problem if Marines are getting bored.

We shouldn't start wars because people are gung ho to go blow stuff up.

[MelchyBeau]

Some Postwar looting? No its not just some postwar looting.

Insurgency is a serious problem. We wouldn't need heavily armored HumVees if it was just some looters.

[ QUOTE ]
_ A bomb targeting a prominent Shiite cleric killed seven people in Karbala outside one of southern Iraq's holiest shrines. The cleric, Sheik Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalayee, was among 31 wounded. Al-Karbalayee represents Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
_ Iraqi insurgents are growing more effective and it will take time to get U.S. troops the $4 billion in armor they need for protection, defense officials said. Officials rejected growing criticism that armor shortages in Iraq reflect poor war planning, and they said they've been working as fast as possible to give troops what they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20041215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_developments)

We also have Kidnappings, Beheadings and the like.


There are also assasinations (attempted and successful)

[ QUOTE ]

Qassem Mihawi was attacked as he was leaving his home Thursday in the Jamiha district in western Baghdad, said communications ministry official Abbas Mohammed.


Senior officials working for the Iraqi interim government have been the target of numerous attacks by insurgents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Source (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=1503&e=15&u=/afp/20041216/ts_afp/iraq_041216084931)


Melch

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The military is for defense, not for offense.

I'm sorry but it's not my problem if Marines are getting bored.

We shouldn't start wars because people are gung ho to go blow stuff up.

[/ QUOTE ] Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and knowledge about America's modern military, and specifically the Marine Corp.

[Hack]

No, it really doesn't.

Regardless of whether or not I know the intricacies and complexities of the Marines or America's military as a whole, it doesn't change my opinion that the Marines did more harm than good when they went into Iraq. I don't blame them for it, however, because it wasn't their choice.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
The military is for defense, not for offense. I'm sorry but it's not my problem if Marines are getting bored.
We shouldn't start wars because people are gung ho to go blow stuff up.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're an idiot. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Why are you starting [censored] with me? No one said anything about "your problem". I'm not talking about starting wars. I'm talking about already being in one. I said nothing about going out and starting anything. You can't fight a completely defensive war ONCE YOUR IN ONE. I'm talking about their purpose. It's not a matter of them being bored. It's a matter of sending them to do a job they're not trained or equipped for. You don't send a hairdresser with a pair of scissors out to fix your car, especially when there's a mechanic available. It's the same thing.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it really doesn't. Regardless of whether or not I know the intricacies and complexities of the Marines or America's military as a whole, it doesn't change my opinion that the Marines did more harm than good when they went into Iraq. I don't blame them for it, however, because it wasn't their choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Marines are doing what they're trained for. And I wasn't talking about Iraq. If you'll read my post (Did you?), I was talking about the military under Cohen, and the places they sent Marines at that time that were completely inappropriate for them.

[Hack]

Wow chill out. lol.

Someone needs to take a chill pill, seriously.

Anyone who has a "[censored]" in their post is not someone that I want to continue a discussion with.

And if I'm the idiot, how come I'm not the one confusing the possessive "your" with the contraction "you're". I don't normally point something that trivial out, but when someone calls me an idiot, I kind of have to- because normally a genius wouldn't make a mistake like that.

[Hack]

And Cohen was a lot better than Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld's post war planning for Iraq has been a disaster.

He's indifferent to the complaints from troops and their families, and he started a war later having to activate the ready reserves and send troops back for multiple tours of duty.

He is a true embarrassment.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow chill out. lol. Someone needs to take a chill pill, seriously. Anyone who has a "[censored]" in their post is not someone that I want to continue a discussion with.

And if I'm the idiot, how come I'm not the one confusing the possessive "your" with the contraction "you're". I don't normally point something that trivial out, but when someone calls me an idiot, I kind of have to- because normally a genius wouldn't make a mistake like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, I gave a simple critique of Cohen's performance. You jumped in with this crap:

[ QUOTE ]
The military is for defense, not for offense. I'm sorry but it's not my problem if Marines are getting bored.
We shouldn't start wars because people are gung ho to go blow stuff up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're poor sensitive psyche can't handle my language then don't discuss. But you're the one that turned a simple debate into something stupid. And yes, I do know how to use contractions properly, but yes, i do misuse them and/or write typos when typing quickly. All I can say is "Hack" is a pretty good name for you from what I've read.

[Hack]

And I hope you are baked right now.

it would explain a lot.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
And Cohen was a lot better than Rumsfeld.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're still waiting for ANY evidence of this.

[ QUOTE ]
Rumsfeld's post war planning for Iraq has been a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do realize we're occupying a country don't you? Because you obviously have completely unrealistic expectations for how difficult that is.

[ QUOTE ]
He's indifferent to the complaints from troops and their families

[/ QUOTE ]
You know this how? He has a job to do and so do they. And the fact that he has to ask them to do that job doesn't necessarily mean he's indifferent.

[ QUOTE ]
and he started a war later having to activate the ready reserves and send troops back for multiple tours of duty.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, shouldn't there be aq comma in there someplace? And you do realize he didn't unilaterally start the war don't you? You really believe it was his decision? He went to Bush and said, "Let's start a war."???

[ QUOTE ]
He is a true embarrassment.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's pretty damned annoyingly arrogant. But I don't think he's the worst or best.

[Hack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And Cohen was a lot better than Rumsfeld.
We're still waiting for ANY evidence of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Cohen didn't get 1000+ troops killed in an unnecessary war. I know they're dead because we went to war war, and Cohen had an international philosophy similar to Clinton's, which involved not going looking for trouble.

[ QUOTE ]
Rumsfeld's post war planning for Iraq has been a disaster.
You do realize we're occupying a country don't you? Because you obviously have completely unrealistic expectations for how difficult that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do realize that, and it's his fault for not resigning before the war started, or at least questioning Bush's motives and reasons for war.

[ QUOTE ]
He's indifferent to the complaints from troops and their families
You know this how? He has a job to do and so do they. And the fact that he has to ask them to do that job doesn't necessarily mean he's indifferent.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_351130325.html

"BILOXI, Miss. (AP) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced sometime in the next year, Sen. Trent Lott says.

"I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," Lott told the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers."

[ QUOTE ]
and he started a war later having to activate the ready reserves and send troops back for multiple tours of duty.
First, shouldn't there be aq comma in there someplace? And you do realize he didn't unilaterally start the war don't you? You really believe it was his decision? He went to Bush and said, "Let's start a war."???

[/ QUOTE ]

He did start the war. He gave the order after Bush told him it was a-okay to start it, and he's been the pointman on almost every major military decision.

[ QUOTE ]
He is a true embarrassment.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's pretty damned annoyingly arrogant. But I don't think he's the worst or best.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's terrible. The blood of over 1200 U.S. soldiers is on his hands.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it really doesn't.

Regardless of whether or not I know the intricacies and complexities of the Marines or America's military as a whole, it doesn't change my opinion that the Marines did more harm than good when they went into Iraq. I don't blame them for it, however, because it wasn't their choice.

[/ QUOTE ] This has nothing to do with your original post. Part of the problem in Iraq is we have troops in roles they were never designed or trained for. You then try to imply we have a defensive army, which is so laughably stupid. Show me a defensive army and I will show you a loser in the making.

Please stop talking about something you have shown to know absolutely nothing about.

If you feel like arguing about Rummy and his moronic policies, fine, but the blame here does not fall on our military.

[Hack]

This post has nothing to do with the original post either.

I never claimed we had a defensive army. The oath they take is to defend America, however, and only an idiot could argue that they are defending America in Iraq right now.

Let's see: show you a defensive army and you'll show me a loser in the making? The Swiss have a defensive army and they haven't been attacked, even though they're in the middle of Europe. We have two oceans protecting us. We have no business doing what we are doing.

You're apparently ignorant of the Constitution, but that's okay, you're just like most Americans. /images/graemlins/cool.gif The Constitution says that it's illegal to fight a war without an official declaration of war, and it has to be passed by Congress.

And read the 2nd to last sentence of my post. I specifically said that the blame does not fall on the troops. They didn't choose to be sent to Iraq.

Who's ignorant now? Maybe it's the cracka.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you said the military is for defense, and not offense. Are you aware that some times for defensive purposes, you need to be on the offensive? basically you are saying we should just keep all of our troops on our soil and they should all sit in bunkers waiting for the enemy to show up.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see: show you a defensive army and you'll show me a loser in the making? The Swiss have a defensive army and they haven't been attacked, even though they're in the middle of Europe.

[/ QUOTE ] hey smart guy, Switzerland is a nuetral country, try again please.

[ QUOTE ]
We have two oceans protecting us. We have no business doing what we are doing.

[/ QUOTE ] yes we do, and it was very effective against the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, and against the terrorist on 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution says that it's illegal to fight a war without an official declaration of war, and it has to be passed by Congress.

[/ QUOTE ] you are very naive, I'll let others elaborate...

[ QUOTE ]
Who's ignorant now? Maybe it's the cracka.

[/ QUOTE ]you are 0 for 4 already, so why start here. You batted a nice .000 in this thread.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Rumsfeld stating that nobody could have forseen the insurgency

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember seeing him make this statement on TV, and I lost what little remaining respect I had for him. I'm not remotely qualified to be Secretary of Defense, but I found nothing in the least bit surprising about the insurgency. I thought from the beginning of the Iraq fiasco that toppling Sadaam would be fairly easy, but the occupation after toppling him would be a nightmare. The insurgency was an entirely predictable aftermath of Sadaam's ouster, and the failure of Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration to plan for it is inexcusable.

[Hack]

Switzerland is neutral- DUH! That's why they're not attacked like we are.

It takes a really belligerent foreign policy for a country protected by two oceans to be attacked. We had this kind of foreign policy in the days before we entered WWII.

Pearl Harbor happened because FDR was pushing the Japanese around, telling them to get out of Manchuria. Read a book about it for once, instead of relying on what you learned in middle school.

9/11 happened because the United States meddles in the middle east.

If the definition of naivete is respecting constitutional boundaries and rules, then, yes, I'm naive.

If I'm batting .000, then you're the worst fielder, eclipsing Bill Buckner.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I am dumber for having read your post. I can tell already there is no point in talking to you about anything. Enjoy your stupidity.

[Hack]

Cornell would say otherwise, but thanks for resorting to personal insults instead of answering the points mentioned in my post.

if my post made you dumber then there truly is no help for you.

Adios.