Rumsfeld

[Rick Nebiolo]

He could become infamous. A link from RealClearPolitcs.com to a Seymour Hersch "New Yorker" article:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1

~ Rick

[HDPM]

Troubling article. Assuming the article is accurate I don't understand why war supporters like to limit their available force so much. If true it should cost Rumsfeld his job. Might cost the President his if things go wrong. Not to mention what it will do to the guys fighting. I hope things don't go wrong.

[Clarkmeister]

I hope everyone reads that article.

Its a good article in that it ties together a lot of information that has been floating around for days and puts it all in one place. In other words, this isn't news, but it is the most comprehensive presentation of the situation I've seen. Unfortunately, I have seen almost everything in the article in other places as well, so its highly likely to be a pretty accurate presentation.

The sad thing is that a strength of Bush the First's administration was that he let his military people do the military planning.

But hey, everythings going according to plan. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

Or not.

[dogsballs]

"He could become infamous."

Yep. It's getting labelled as Rumsfeld's War. More of the similar from the UK Guardian yesterday. (you need to paste the rest of the link, the comma seems to screw it up)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,926176,00.html

dogs

[IrishHand]

C'mon now Clarky - you know the pro-war folks are going to find an objectionable line in the first paragraph and not bother to read any more than that. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif You are right though - it's a great article overall. Hmmm...
Last Thursday, the Army’s senior ground commander, Lieutenant General William S. Wallace, said to reporters, “The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against.”
That sounds a lot to me like things aren't going according to plan. Then again - I'm sure the higher military authorities know lots that we don't and everything's going perfectly. What's that? Lt. Gen. Wallace is a higher military authority. Ooops...

Seriously though - most of that article doesn't surprise me. As you mentioned, most of it has been spread out in the media over the past week in some form or another.

Military commanders generally prefer overwhelming odds - the application of overwhelming forces to the correct part of the front. Since we clearly didn't have that and are now struggling to come up with it, it should be obvious that the politicians are far too involved. It's one thing to assign objectives, it's another entirely to tell career soldiers how they should go about doing it.

Irish

[The_Baron]

Herein we see the problem with having a civilian have the ability to overrule the military force developers on matters of explicit military doctrine. You don't go to war unless you plan on winning it. Otherwise you're sacrificing your own forces. You don't plan on winning it unless you plan on putting everything you can on the ground and smashing the opposition completely and as rapidly as possible.
Rumsfeld is an idiot and I suspect his resemblence to MacNamara(sp?) may well be proof of a genetic basis for military incompetence. It's time for Bush-II to fire his sorry ass and try to appoint a SecDef who understands what wars do. Who knows, maybe Bill Garrison is looking for a job. He'd make an admirable choice

[Jimbo]

"Herein we see the problem with having a civilian have the ability to overrule the military force developers on matters of explicit military doctrine."

Heh! Even as much as I enjoy a good war now and then I still do not believe the Generals should make all the major decisions! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[IrishHand]

Politicians decide when and where to go to war, but the generals should be given nearly free reign as to how the conduct that war. I agree that the politicians should place certain limitations, like "no nukes" or "try to stop the troops from raping the locals", but anything which intrudes into the traditional realm of military command (tactics, strategies, operations, etc) is just stupid.

[The_Baron]

I don't think the generals should make all the decisions by any means. But I do think the SecDef should be a strictly advisory position to the President, not a command position. We've got a constitutional structure that forces the President to be Commander in Chief regardless of abilities to command. To install an additional command layer wherein the individual has absolutely no requirement to be capable to perform that command is just a path to situations like we're seeing now.
The forces will win. That's a given. Had Rumsfeld shut his ignorant mouth and given a tiny bit of thought to the possibility that people who'd spent, in some cases, upwards of 40 years commanding military forces, developing combat doctrine and establishing strategic and tactical parameters for various types of warfar, he might have had the sense to let the generals plan the war.
I don't believe the generals are infallible. Not by any stretch. I do believe that the critical function of the Commander in Chief is to act as the check and balance against failings on the part of his generals. We're stuck with having the President with that authority. Having a nitwit who's military experience seems to be mainly limited to watching reruns of Combat and having seen the theater poster for Platoon is counterproductive.
If you want your car fixed, you have a mechanic do the work, not the business manager for Texaco. Let's let the mechanics work on the war.

[B-Man]

If the article is true, Rumsfeld should be removed as Secretary of Defense. I thought we learned our lesson in Viet Nam that you don't try to win a war with one arm tied behind your back, but I guess some people didn't learn that (assuming the article is accurate).

[MMMMMM]

Well I read the article. I'm not sure if Hersh employed a bit of slant or not.

Anyway, I think I'll withhold judgment until we see how the war actually pans out.

There is something of a cautionary note which occurred to me, which the article or posters here never mentioned: If we commit a huge portion of our available forces to the war in Iraq, where does that leave us with respect to
potential emerging problems elsewhere, or even (heaven forfend;-)), at home? What if North Korea does the unexpected and actually attacks South Korea and perhaps even Japan? Maybe China might take the opportunity to invade Taiwan too at this point. And when our forces are
stretched thin in both the Middle East and Pacific Rim, what if the conflict somehow broadens--maybe China starts to side with North Korea--and we then somehow come under
attack on our own soil? Given the growing anti-US sentiment worldwide, this is not entirely unthinkable. We need above all to retain sufficient forces to ensure defense of our homeland. Chinese military doctrine has long included planning for an all-out war against
the USA, including massive cyber-attacks against our business and military computers.

Rumsfeld said we could fight a war on two fronts, Middle Eastern and Pacific Rim, and prevail. But could we prevail
fighting a war on 3 fronts: Middle East, Pacific Rim, and at home?

Farfetched? Probably so--but our own security should not depend on not rolling snake eyes.

Too many troops concentrated in a few locations in Iraq--or the Pacific Rim--might be sitting ducks for a nuclear attack or biological attack. How many divisions can we afford to lose to catastrophe? And as long as we can effectively reinforce, as we are moving to do now, maybe we didn't need all those troops the generals purportedly wanted on the ground initially.

Hersh makes it sound almost as if we are in imminent danger of being unable to resupply or reinforce our troops and that they may quickly become ineffective and in serious danger. While they may be in danger from unconventional warfare attacks like WMD, his article is far from convincing that we won't be able to supply and reinforce them as needed. That might be a possibility, but it may be highly unlikely rather than likely. I think we just don't know at this point. Rumsfeld's strategy may well have taken into account the resupply/reinforcement issue if needed and as needed, while the generals would rather have had everything in place initially. Having everything in place initially would be more convenient (and a bit more certain), but more costly as well if it turned out it wasn't needed. On the other hand, if Syria and Iran somehow actually get into the fray against us in a significant manner soon (unlikely), we may wish we had more resources immediately available. However the war seems to be proceeding well and steadily, and late April when another division and then some are expected to arrive isn't really that far off.

I'm curious as to how severe the disagreements between Rumsfeld and the generals actually were. Somehow I don't trust Hersh to have reported it entirely objectively.

[andyfox]

Which arm did we have tied behind our back in Vietnam? I remember the equivalent of three Hiroshima bombs being dropped on South Vietnam, the country we were supposed to be defending, every month for six years. I remember twice as many troops as are now deployed in Iraq being deployed. I remember millions of "enemy" killed.

The almost fanatical faith in airpower has been a hallmark of American war policy since the writings of Douhet and the theories of Billy Mitchell took hold in the 1930s. Herein, and in Rumsfeld's micromismanagement, lies the similarity to Vietnam.

[brad]

'The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against.” '

fyi, the general in charge of playing saddam creamed the US forces (its true) and quit in a huff when they kept changing the rules and not letting him do stuff so the americans could win.

true story which doesnt exactly inspire confidence.

[brad]

'Which arm did we have tied behind our back in Vietnam? '

generals wanted to nuke china, n.v., maybe russia.

[adios]

I read an interesting column in the WSJ today from a retired General who commanded a division in Desert Storm and who now teaches at West Point. He stated that the US forces are extended and the situation is risky. He stated that the USA should have 3 divisions attacking Baghdad instead of one and another division protecting our rear. Bascically he put the blame on Rumsfeld for a reckless plan. I thought it was interesting that someone of his ilk would write a column on the op ed page of the WSJ and make those statements. I'll try to reprint it if I get some time. There were also 3 other articles in the WSJ today that were great I thought. One was about the Shiite's that provided an indepth insight as to why they have received us in the manner they have. Another article was I feel a must read by all about opening up the port in Umm Qasr and how humanitarian aid will not arrive in quantity for at least six weeks. It's absolutely incredible that lack of forsight and planning shown by the administration. The third piece was an editorial supporting Rumsfeld although I didn't find it convincing. Anyway I think the WSJ is doing an excellent job of providing factual information about the war. Yes they obviously have a conservative editorial staff but they do have liberal columnists (Albert Hunt comes to mind) and they have reported many stories not particularly flattering to the administration regarding the war. Today it was 3-1 criticizing the administration.

[dogsballs]

re the Shi'ites.

I made a new post earlier, but it's lost in the forum volume already. Big news but not much comment on it yet.

The Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah in Iraq has called a fatwa and urged Muslims to resist the US/UK invasion. On top of remembering US troops watching their revolt in '91 being crushed, there's probably not much chance of an uprising by Shi'ites now (well, not in favour of the coalition forces).
Apparently the Grand Ayatollah thinks it's better to live with Sadaam than having your homeland bombed and invaded by the infidels. Who do you hate more? There's the answer from the top Shi'ite cleric.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926947,00.html

You need to paste the end onto the url

[andyfox]

Well, nukes were "used" in Vietnam, in the sense that Nixon's madman theory threatened their use in order to try to get the North Vietnamese to tow the line.

The fact that we didn't nuke China doesn't mean we fought the war with one hand tied behind our back. We lost the war because it wasn't a war that could be won by us.

[Jimbo]

"We lost the war because it wasn't a war that could be won by us."

Andy no one who was there believes that at all. Unless you qualify it with "by using the tactics we chose to use."

[brad]

well something is always lost i think when i post /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

what i meant is that the war was waged (top leadership i mean) by madmen.

basically a bunch of power crazed guys got the 'go' code, then complained that they couldnt go full throttle.

but i think chomsky is right on this one. we won in vietnam.

we won!

our primary objective was to get jewel of orient for ourselves. secondarily we would destroy it.

we achieved our secondary goal.

[adios]

dogsballs (I like that handle) I'm fairly certain we don't agree about many things in politics. With that said I believe the article in Wall Street Journal today about Umm Qasr and the problems in bringing in ships with humanitarian aid is a must reading for all citizens of the USA. Perhaps I'm exaggerating it's significance but for me at least is was very revealing about the current administration. I think it was more significant than the article about the Shiites. The points made about the Shiites were basically that the US govt has shown a lack of understanding and they, the Shiites, have a history of being betrayed. As far as the Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah he may not be that knowledgable about the USA and he may view democracy and open societies as threatening. I certainly reject many things about fundamental Islam and religous states and how they treat their followers and citizens. Before a Jihad erupts (not from you but others) agains that statement, yes I don't think that the USA should impose their will on all countries and societies.

[andyfox]

No one who was there? I know lots of people who were there who said it was unwinnable. But it really doesn't matter what people say, it matters what was.

Of course we could have levelled it into a parking lot, as General LeMay suggested. But I wouldn't call that a "win."

[andyfox]

I don't think theyh were madmen, but I do think they turned into homicidal maniacs. They had no idea what they were fighting or how to fight it. All they knew was we could bomb the hell out of them and that we couldn't possibly lose to those little yellow men in pajamas. It was a combination of arrogance, ignorance, stupidity, and hubris.

[IrishHand]

Define what you think would have been "winning" for the US vis a vis the Vietnam conflict.

[Jimbo]

A 51st state? Trophy wives for all the servicemen? Vietnamese food would now be pizza and beer? Turning it into a resort area like Thailand? Better dope? Cheaper rice? The opposite of losing? A mushroom cloud? Dry socks? The return of all POW's and remains? Being welcomed home? Democratic elections? A surrender by the North? Fifty-Thousand less American deaths? More Vietnamese deaths?

Some of that, not all, perhaps more or less. Difficult question IrishHand but a thought provoking one at that. Hell ask the Generals and politicians, I'm pretty sure they could have figured out what constituted winning. After all they figured out we lost.

[IrishHand]

So basically - you firmly believe we could have "won" the Vietnam conflict, but you admit you don't know (or at least haven't seriously considered) what "wiining" would have entailed.

[Jimbo]

Basically, you are putting words in my mouth as usual IrishHand. Please read my response and interpret it as you wish. Oops, you already have, no surprise there.

[andyfox]

"ask the Generals and politicians, I'm pretty sure they could have figured out what constituted winning."

They would have said winning was the defeat of the Communists and and independent, free, democratic South Vietnam. Could never have happened.

[Cyrus]

"[Generals and politicians] would have said winning was the defeat of the Communists and and independent, free, democratic South Vietnam. Could never have happened."

Not only it could have happened, it was right on the verge of happening the moment the French left Indochina.

A "free and independent" (not to mention "democratic") Vietnam was not in the United States' interest. Simple as that.

[Jimbo]

Thanks Andy, if I had known you were a General I would have simply referred IrishHand to you. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif